BAP 


. 


.*$ 

5 

♦  •NT 

T3 

•5. 

_c 

n"V 

_9- 

*k 

(0 

*— 

, 

.— 

2 

^ 

cl 

J? 

fc 

O 

5 

0 

O 

CD 

C 

bfl 

<c 

w 

0) 

4 

O 

3 

1 

<-* 

M 

E 
to 

•5 

^ 

FM 

-Q 

« 

S** 

-a 

^ 

>^. 

CD 

^r 

| 

CD 
</> 
CD 

<3 

*> 

CL 

g 

<: 

£^£ 

>                 ^ 

*\ 


AG 


,1 


THE 


/letters 


OF 


C0NTAININ8 

ANIMADVERSIONS 

UPON 

THE   LECTURES  OF  DR.  WOODS 

ON 

INFANT  BAPTISM. 


FIRST    PUBLISHED    IN    THE    COLUMBIAN    STAR. 


PHILADELPHIA : 

W.  PILKINGTON    AND    CO.  PRINTERS, 

S.  W.  Corner  of  Sixth  &  Cherry  sts. 

1828. 


To  the  Editor  of  the  Columbian  Star. 

Dear  Brother — Soon  after  the  Lectures  of  Dr.  Woods  on 
Infant  Baptism  appeared,  an  intimate  christian  friend  who  lives 
several  miles  from  me,  and  myself,  agreed  that  we  would  on 
reading,  make  animadversions  upon  the  work,  and  communi- 
cate them  to  each  other  by  letter.  In  pursuance  of  this 
agreement,  we  wrote  much  more  than  either  of  us  had  intend- 
ed. Believing  that  some  good  might  accrue  from  the  publi- 
cation of  our  animadversions,  we  have,  by  alterations  and 
transpositions,  brought  them  into  the  form  of  seven  letters, 
which  are  now  offered  for  insertion  in  the  Columbian  Star,  if 
you  deem  them  worthy  of  a  place.  Yours,  &c. 


0  * 


X.UTTER  I. 


My  Dear  Brother — According  to  our  engagement,  I  send 
you  some  of  my  thoughts  on  the  Lectures  of  Dr.  Woods  on 
Infant  Baptism,  hoping  to  be  favoured  in  a  short  time  with 
your's  in  return. 

THE   QUESTION. 

Our  Paedobaptist  brethren  are  not  agreed  among  themselves 
on  the  subject  of  Infant  Baptism;  some  of  them  administering 
it  to  all  infants,  indiscriminately,  and  others  restricting  its  use 
to  the  children  of  a  believer.  On  this,  as  well  as  on  other 
accounts,  it  might  have  been  well,  if  the  lectures  had  com- 
menced with  a  formal  enunciation  of  the  question  to  be  dis- 
cussed. 

The  question  between  Dr.  Woods  and  us,  on  the  doctrine 
of  Infant  Baptism  appears  to  be  this;  Are  the  infant  children 
of  a  believer  proper  subjects  of  baptism  ?  In  this  doctrinal 
question,  there  appear  to  be  involved  the  following  questions 
of  duty:  Is  it  the  duty  of  every  believing  parent,  to  solicit 
baptism  for  his  infant  children  from  a  christian  minister,  and 
in  order  to  obtain  it  for  them,  to  engage  that  he  will  bring 
them  up  in  the  nurture  and, admonition  of  the  Lord  ?  Is,  it 
the  duty  of  the  minister,  who  may  be  applied  to,  if  he  is  satis- 
fied respecting  the  sincerity  and  piety  of  the  parent,  to  admi- 
nister the  ordinance  ? 

The  questions  stated  in  the  preceding  paragraph,  do  not 
cover  the  whole  ground  of  dispute.  We  differ  about  believers' 
baptism,  as  well  as  about  infant  baptism.  To  the  question, 
Are  believers  proper  subjects  of  baptism  ?  our  Paedobaptist 
brethren  answer  affirmatively,  as  well  as  ourselves;  and  there 
appears,  at  first  view,  to  be  an  entire  agreement  between  us 
on  this  subject.  But  it  will  be  seen  we  diner  greatly  if  the 
following  questions  of  duty  be  proposed. — Is  it  the  duty  of 
every  believer  to  solicit  baptism  for  himself  from  a  christian 


4      Dr.  Woods1  Method  of  conducting  the  Controversy. 

minister,  and,  in  order  to  obtain  it,  to  make  a  profession  of 
his  faith  ? — Is  it  the  duty  of  the  minister  who  may  be  applied 
to,  if  he  is  satisfied  respecting  the  sincerity  and  piety  of  the 
candidate,  to  administer  the  ordinance  ?  We  answer  both 
these  questions  in  the  affirmative,  but  they  make  an  exception 
in  all  cases  in  which  the  believer  was  baptized  in  infancy. 
This  difference  is,  in  my  estimation,  much  more  important 
than  that  which  respects  infant  baptism.  I  do  not  so  much 
object  to  infant  baptism,  considered  in  itself,  as  to  the  use 
which  is  made  of  it,  to  set  aside  believers'  baptism;  if  it  should 
ever  become  universal  on  the  present  plan,  believers'  bap- 
tism will  be  banished  from  the  Church. 

Our  Paedobaptist  brethren  practise  two  baptisms,  which  are 
distinct,  and  which  might  be  practised  without  being  suffered 
to  oppose  each  other.  Infant  baptism  is,  they  think,  a  pa- 
rental duty;vbelievers'  baptism,  a  personal  duty.  These  du- 
ties need  not  interfere  with  each  other.  When  it  is  conceded 
to  us  that  believers  are  proper  subjects  of  baptism,  we  ought 
to  hold  fast  the  concession  in  the  full  extent  of  its  meaning, 
and  whatever  may  be  proved  respecting  infants,  we  should 
still  ask,  why  are  believers  prevented  from  performing  the 
duty  which  is  implied  in  this  concession  ?  We  owe  it  to  the 
cause  of  truth,  to  have  the  whole  question  fairly  met,  and  to 
let  it  be  distinctly  understood,  that  we  are  contending  for  the 
privileges  of  believers,  rather  than  against  the  privileges  of 
their  children. 

DR.  WOODS'  METHOD  OF  CONDUCTING  THE  CONTROVERSY. 

The  spirit,  with  which  these  lectures  are  written,  is  excel- 
lent. I  hope  the  time  is  coming  when  christians  will  be  chris- 
tians even  in  controversy.  It  would  distress  me  much  to  see 
a  reply  to  this  publication,  that  should  exhibit  the  acrimonious 
temper,  which  has  been  too  much  indulged  by  writers  on  both 
sides  of  the  question.  While  the  Dr.  firmly  opposes  our  sen- 
timents, he  has  written  scarcely  a  sentence,  of  which  we  can 
complain  that  it  is  calculated  to  excite  prejudice  against  us. 
What  he  has  said  in  lecture  8,  p.  171,  172,  may  be  an  excep- 
tion, but  as  there  is,  perhaps,  too  much  reason  for  his  re- 
marks, we  ought  rather  to  profit  by  them  than  complain. 

The  plan  of  investigating  the  subject  differs  in  appearance 
from  that  which  Pgedobaptist  writers  commonly  pursue.    Dr. 


The  Kind  of  Evidence.  5 

W.  has  made  the  commission  the  great  hinge  of  the  question; 
yet  you  will  perceive,  that  arguments  from  the  Abrahamic 
covenant,  and  the  ancient  dispensation,  are  the  weights  on 
which  he  relies  to  give  the  turn  to  the  Paadobaptist  side.  To 
justify  his  interpretation  of  the  commission,  he  argues  that  the 
covenant  of  which  circumcision  was  appointed  to  be  the  seal, 
was  spiritual,  gracious,  and  immutable,  p.  35,  and  that  the 
authority,  by  which  members  are  admitted  to  the  privileges  of 
the  christian  church,  is  contained  in  that  covenant,  or  char- 
ter, perpetuated  to  the  present  time,  with  no  other  change 
than  a  modification  of  its  outward  form,  p..  35. 

THE  KIND  OF  EVIDENCE. 

The  commission  is  the  proper  hinge  of  the  question.  In 
professing  to  hang  the  whole  upon  this,  Dr.  W.  has  made  an 
important  concession,  in  return  for  which,  I  would  allow  him 
in  the  interpretation,  to  avail  himself  of  every  advantage, 
which  inference,  in  the  sober  use  of  it,  can  possibly  afford.  I 
am  not  of  opinion  that  inferences,  even  concerning  positive 
institutes,  are  to  be  discarded.  The  meaning  of  every  word, 
in  the  commands  on  which  such  institutes  are  founded,  must 
be  determined  by  inference;  and  the  meaning  of  the  entire 
commands,  must  be  ascertained  by  inference  from  the  mean- 
ing of  their  several  parts.  Besides,  if  some  duties  are  clearly 
expressed  in  a  command,  there  may  be  others  as  clearly  im- 
plied. If  by  the  commission,  v/e  could,  without  the  use  of 
inference,  demonstrate  that  it  is  the  duty  of  a  minister  to  bap- 
tize converts,  we  might  infer,  that  it  is  the  duty  of  the  con- 
verts to  be  baptized,  and  the  proof  in  the  latter  case  would  be 
just  as  satisfactory  as  in  the  former. 

Dr.  W.  refers  to  tradition  also  as  a  source  of  evidence. 
Some  tilings  which  he  has  said  respecting  tradition,  are  start- 
ling to  a  timid  protestant.  But  we  must  concede,  that  the 
will  of  God  ought  to  be  obeyed,  however  it  is  made  known; 
and  that  a  mind  rightly  disposed,  will  seek  to  know  that  will, 
without  prescribing  the  method  in  which  it  shall  be  revealed. 
The  methods  which  God  has  taken  in  the  different  ages  of 
the  world,  have  been  sufficient  for  his  purpose,  and  men  have 
been  required  to  obey  only  according  to  the  revelation  made. 
While  tradition  passed  through  but  few  hands,  men  were  left 
to  learn  the  will  of  God  from  it.     Since  the  life  of  man  has 

a  2 


6  The  Christian  Sabbath. 

been  shortened,  God  has  committed  his  will  to  writing,  be- 
cause this  method  of  communication  is  less  liable  to  corrup- 
tion. We  are  sure,  therefore,  that  God  regards  tradition  as 
too  uncertain  in  the  present  state  of  the  world  for  the  revela- 
tion of  his  will.  If  he  has  still  left  some  truths  to  be  seen  by 
the  light  of  reason  and  tradition,  we  are  sure  that  he  has  judg- 
ed wisely,  what  truths  might  be  so  left.  A  mind  rightly  dis- 
posed, will  in  every  case,  avail  itself  of  the  best  light  within 
its  reach,  and  guided  thereby,  will  follow  on  to  know  the 
Lord.  He  will  never  follow  tradition,  where  he  has  scripture 
to  guide  him,  and  will  avoid  every  approach  toward  the  fault 
of  those,  who  make  void  the  written  law  through  tradition, 
thereby  rejecting  the  counsel  of  God  against  themselves,  by 
judging  that  to  be  more  certain,  which  God  has  judged  to  be 
less  so. 

I  propose  the  following  rules  for  the  application  of  evidence 
from  inference  and  tradition.  The  justness  of  them,  cannot, 
I  think,  be  questioned.  1 .  Never  allow  an  inference  which  is 
direct  and  clear,  to  be  set  aside  by  one  which  is  remote  and 
obscure.  2.  Never  admit  any  proof  from  tradition,  which 
will  set  aside  what  may  be  proved  by  scripture. 

THE  CHRISTIAN  SABBATH. 

Dr.  W.  thinks  that  we  have  the  same  kind  of  proof  for  in- 
fant baptism  as  for  the  christian  Sabbath:  and  that  we  must 
resort  for  proof  of  either,  to  inference  and  tradition.  Let  us 
then  receive  from  inference  and  tradition  what  light  they  can 
afford,  bearing  in  mind  the  rules  prescribed  above  for  the  ap- 
plication of  evidence  from  these  sources. 

If  the  law  of  God  is,  remember  every  Saturday  to  keep  it 
holy,  then  no  tradition  can  authorize  us  to  profane  that  holy 
day.  If  tradition  should  teach  that  the  ancient  christians  con- 
secrated Sunday  to  the  Lord,  though  we  might  infer  that  Sun- 
day ought  to  be  observed,  yet  we  ought  rather  to  keep  two 
Sabbaths  than  to  exalt  the  authority  of  tradition  and  inference 
above  the  express  command  of  the  law.  Either  the  fourth 
command  must  be  erased  from  the  decalogue,  or  it  will  for 
ever  require  that  we  remember  Saturday  to  keep  it  holy, 
whatever  other  days  we  may  observe  for  sacred  uses.  In  like 
manner,  if  the  Lord  Jesus  has  commanded  every  believer  to 
be  baptized,  as  an  act  of  personal  obedience,  and  has  made 


The  Christian  Sabbath.  7 

a  clear  revelation  of  his  will  in  this  particular  in  the  written 
word,  then,  though  we  should  be  able  to  prove  by  tradition, 
and  remote  inference,  that  believers  ought  to  have  their  chil- 
dren baptized,  yet  this  tradition  and  inference,  should  not  be 
allowed  to  set  aside  the  clear  command  of  scripture.  Con- 
vince me  that  the  law  of  God  requires  Saturday  to  be  kept 
holy,  and  that  tradition  and  fair  inference  sustain  the  claims 
of  the  christian  Sabbath,  and  I  will  not  make  void  the  law 
through  tradition,  but  will  consecrate  both  days  to  the  Lord.* 
Convince  me  that  the  Redeemer,  by  a  clear  revelation  of  his 
will  in  the  written  word,  has  commanded  his  disciples  to  be 
baptized,  and  that  tradition  and  inference  require  parents  to 
have  their  children  baptized,  then  I  will  not  make  void  the 
command  by  tradition  and  inference,  nor  will  I  despise  the 
will  of  God  when  fairly  discovered  by  these  means,  but  I  wiH 
practise  both  baptisms. 

Although  the  case  of  the  christian  Sabbath,  and  that  of  in- 
fant baptism,  may  both  be  had  in  view,  in  fixing  the  rules  of 
evidence,  yet  they  ought  to  be  decided  independently  of  each 
other,  according  to  the  facts  found  in  each  respectively.  If  in 
our  judgment  respecting  the  christian  Sabbath,  we  have  al- 
lowed more  weight  to  tradition  and  inference  than  to  clear 
scripture  testimony,  we  have  judged  wrong,  and  we  ought  ra- 
ther to  undo  the  wrong  than  establish  it  as  a  precedent. 

Should  it  be  urged  that  the  two  baptisms  proposed  to  be 
practised  together  do  necessarily  conflict  with  each  other, 
then  I  should  reply,  that  the  baptism  which  is  sustained  by 
the  weaker  evidence,  must  yield.  But  why  do  they  necessari- 
ly conflict  with  each  other  ?  Many  persons  believe,  that  the 
Apostles  re-baptized  those,  whom  John  had  baptized,  or 
whom  they  themselves  had  baptized  during  the  Redeemer's 
persona]  ministry.  They  think  it  a  sufficient  reason  for  this 
repetition  of  baptism,  that  the  two  baptisms  differed  from  each 
other.  Why  may  not  the  same  reason  justify  the  administra- 
tion of  believers'  baptism  and  infant  baptism,  to  the  same  sub- 

*  If  any  one  should  say,  the  commandment  requires  six  days  of  la- 
bour, as  well  as  one  of  rest,  it  might  be  replied  in  the  words  of  Scott: 
l*  It  is  plain  that  the  words  Six  days  shalt  thou  labour  and  do  all  thy 
work,  were  merely  an  allowance  and  not  an  injunction :  for  the  Lord 
forbade  by  other  precepts  all  labour  on  some  of  these  days.1"  Notes 
Exod.  20.  8.  10.  Further,  the  Apostles  kept  both  days.  Doddridge's 
Lectures,  prop.  151.  gr.  7. 


8  The  Christian  Sabbath. 

ject  ?  Moreover,  they  who  were  circumcised  in  infancy,  were 
afterwards  baptised  upon  becoming  disciples  of  Christ.  If 
infant  baptism  takes  the  place  of  infant  circumcision,  believ- 
ers' baptism  may,  with  as  much  propriety,  follow  the  one  as 
the  other:  and  more  especially,  if  the  proselytes  who  were 
baptized  on  the  day  of  pentecost  had  been  previously  baptized 
as  well  as  circumcised,  Acts  ii.  10.  38.  41.  It  is  no  valid 
objection,  that  circumcision  itself  was  not  repeated.  We 
may  argue  with  Dr.  W.  what  is  suitable,  p.  27.  What  is 
manifestly  unsuitable  in  one  case  is  not  so  in  the  other.  Cir- 
cumcision was  a  token  of  God's  covenant,  that  needed  not  to 
be  repeated,  because  it  remained  in  the  flesh;  but  it  is  far 
otherwise  with  baptism.  Indeed,  how  a  man  can  be  said  to 
have  the  seal  of  God's  covenant  upon  him,  who  has  it  neither 
in  his  flesh,  nor  in  his  memory,  I  cannot  understand.  I  sup- 
pose, the  Israelites  would  have  thought  themselves  authorized 
to  circumcise  themselves,  just  as  often  as  they  had  no  other 
proof  of  having  been  circumcised  than  the  information  of  their 
parents. 

The  facts  upon  which  our  judgment  respecting  the  chris- 
tian Sabbath  must  rest,  are  not  concerned  in  the  present 
question.  When  that  case  shall  come  to  be  decided,  the  fol- 
lowing things  will  be  found  among  the  number  that  deserve 
to  be  considered.  1.  In  the  very  nature  of  things,  it  is  im- 
possible that  we  should  have  the  authority  of  scripture  for  the 
particular  day  which  we  observe.  Should  the  scripture  di- 
rect to  keep  Saturday,  or  Sunday,  or  both,  we  know  these 
days  from  the  other  days  of  the  week,  only  by  the  computa- 
tion which  is  in  common  use,  that  is  to  say,  only  by  the  au- 
thority of  tradition.  2.  It  is  impossible  from  the  figure  of 
the  earth,  that  any  one  day  of  the  week  should  be  observed  in 
all  places.  As  Christianity  spreads  eastward  and  westward 
from  any  given  place,  its  professors  will  meet  each  other  in 
the  opposite  hemisphere  of  the  earth  with  a  difference  of  one 
day  in  their  computation  of  time,  and  will  be  Sabbath  break- 
ers to  each  other,  if  nothing  is  left  to  expediency  and  Chris- 
tian prudence,  as  to  the  time  of  keeping  the  Sabbath.  "  As 
it  is  impossible,  says  Dr.  Doddrige,  certainly  to  determine 
which  is  the  seventh  day  from  the  creation,  and  as  (in  conse- 
quence of  the  spherical  form  of  the  earth,  and  the  absurdity 
of  the  scheme  which  supposed  it  one  great  plain)  the  change 
of  place  will  necessarily  occasion  some  alteration  in  the  time 


The  Commission.  9 

of  the  beginning  and  ending  of  any  day  in  question,  it  being 
always  at  the  same  time  somewhere  or  other,  sun-rising  and 
sun-setting,  noon  and  midnight;  it  seems  very  unreasonable 
to  lay  such  a  stress  upon  the  particular  day  as  some  do.  It 
seems  abundantly  sufficient,  that  there  be  six  days  of  labour, 
and  one  of  religious  rest,  which  there  will  be  upon  the  chris- 
tian as  well  as  the  Jewish  scheme."  Lectures  prop.  151. 
schol.  8.  3.  The  commandment'of  scripture  does  not  fix  a 
particular  day.  It  is  not,  Remember  Saturday  to  keep  it  holy, 
but,  remember  the  Sabbath  day  to  keep  it  holy.  Six  days 
shalt  thou  labour  and  do  all  thy  icork ;  but  the  seventh  day  is 
the  Sabbath  of  the  Lord  thy  God.  It  does  not  require  that 
we  keep  the  seventh  day  of  the  week,  but  the  seventh  day 
that  follows  after  six  days  of  labour.  This  we  do  when  we 
keep  what  is  called  the  first  day  of  the  week,  that  is  (John  xx. 
1.)  'jj  ftix  rai  ToL&fictTuv,  the  first  according  to  the  reckoning 
of  the  Jewish  Sabbaths:  for  the  Sabbaths  determine  the 
reckoning  of  the  week,  and  not  the  reckoning  of  the  week 
the  Sabbaths.  4.  There  is  much  evidence  both  from  scrip- 
ture and  tradition,  that  the  Apostles  and  primitive  christians 
observed  for  christian  worship  the  day  following  that  on  which 
the  Jews  kept  their  Sabbath. 

In  the  case  of  infant  baptism,  we  shall  not  find  facts  ana- 
logous to  those  stated  in  the  preceding  paragraph.  1.  The 
nature  of  the  case  admits  of  scripture  evidence,  and  the  best 
evidence  that  the  nature  of  the  case  admits,  we  should  seek 
for  as  the  ground  of  our  decision.  2.  The  same  character 
of  persons  may  be,  and  ought  to  be  admitted  to  baptism  all 
the  world  over.  3.  It  is  conceded  that  we  have  clear  scrip- 
ture authority  for  baptizing  all  believers,  with  the  exception 
of  such  as  have  been  baptized  in  infancy,  and  that  the  autho- 
rity for  excepting  these  is  to  be  made  out  in  some  other  way 
than  by  explicit  scripture  testimony.  4.  It  remains  yet  to  be 
shown  that  there  is  evidence  either  from  scripture  or  tradi- 
tion, that  the  Apostles  and  primitive  christians  ever  omitted 
to  baptize  any  believers  on  the  ground  of  their  having  been 
baptized  in  infancy;  nay  more,  that  they  ever  practised  infant 
baptism. 

THE  COMMISSION. 

Dr.  W.'s  rule  for  interpreting  the  commission  is  correct. 
The  meaning  of  such  language  at  the  time  it  was  used  is  that 


10  The  Commission. 

by  which  we  ought  to  abide.  But  we  cannot  affirm  that  what 
Jesus  meant  is  what  the  Apostles  understood,  so  properly,  as 
that  it  is  what  they  ought  to  have  understood.  He  said, 
Teach  all  nations,  yet,  for  a  considerable  time,  they  preached 
to  Jews  only.  They  allowed  their  Jewish  prejudices  to  influ- 
ence them  too  far.  They  should  have  interpreted  the  com- 
mission less  by  their  previous  Jewish  notions,  and  more  by 
their  Master's  words;  and  so,  I  think,  ought  Dr.  Woods. 

The  meaning  of  the  term  pccS-wiva,  1  suppose,  is  given 
correctly  also,  i.  e.  to  make  disciples,  or  to  disciple,  but  a 
proselyte  and  a  disciple  are  not  the  same  thing.  The  Jews 
would  not  have  said,  Thou  art  his  proselyte,  but  we  are  Mo- 
ses* proselytes.  John  ix.  28.  Had  Dr.  Woods  confined  him- 
self to  the  term  disciple,  his  reasoning  would  not  have  been 
so  plausible.  A  disciple  sustains  a  relation  to  a  teacher,  and 
it  is  this  relation  which  constitutes  him  a  disciple.  John,  and 
Jesus,  and  also  the  Pharisees,  had  disciples  among  the  Jews, 
but  when  a  Jew  became  discipled  to  any  one  of  these  teach- 
ers, he  did  not  thereby  become  proselyted  from  the  Jewish 
religion.  It  was  well  understood,  that  the  relation  which 
constituted  him  a  disciple,  was  something  new,  and  wholly 
distinct  from  that  relation  which  constituted  him  a  member  of 
the  commonwealth  of  Israel,  neither  destroying  it,  nor  serving 
as  a  substitute  for  it.  Hence  it  was  that  the  Apostles  every 
where  claimed  to  be  Jews,  and  entitled  to  all  the  privileges 
of  Israelites,  at  the  same  time  that  they  professed  to  be  disci- 
ples of  Christ.  It  is  therefore  incredible,  that  they  should 
think  of  making  disciples  to  Christ,  just  as  if  they  were  mak- 
ing proselytes  to  Judaism.  They  had  heard  their  Master  fix 
the  terms  of  discipleship,  except  a  man  deny  himself,  and  take 
up  his  cross  and  follow  me,  he  cannot  be  my  disciple.  They 
had  seen  John  make  and  baptize  disciples,  they  had  seen  Je- 
sus do  the  same,  (John,  iv.  1.)  and  they  had  for  some  years 
been  the  agents  of  their  Master  in  this  work.  It  is  not  pro- 
bable that  they  had  ever  compassed  sea  or  land  to  make  a 
proselyte  to  Judaism,  and  if  proselytes  were  baptized  in  those 
days,  and  the  proselyte  makers  administered  that  baptism,  (all 
which  may  be  safely  disputed,)  still  it  is  not  likely  that  the 
Apostles  had  any  concern  in  it.  It  is  sufficiently  clear  that 
they  had  never  seen  either  John,  or  Jesus,  baptizing  Jewish 
proselytes.  They  baptized  not  even  native  Jews,  until  they 
had  first  been  made  disciples.  "Adult  Jews,"  says  Scott, "  pro- 


The  Commission.  11 

fessing  repentance,  and  a  disposition  to  become  Messiah's 
subjects,  were  the  only  persons,  as  far  as  we  can  find,  whom 
John  admitted  to  baptism."  Notes  on  Matt.  iii.  5,  6.  These 
baptisms  to  which  they  had  been  accustomed  were  their  ex- 
ample, and  the  commission  was  their  authority  to  proceed  in 
like  manner  throughout  all  nations — Go,  make  disciples  of  all 
nations,  baptizing  them,  <$fc. 

Occasionally,  in  the  writings  of  Pasdobaptists,  when  they  are 
treating  of  Infant  Baptism,  we  meet  with  intimations  that  in- 
fants may  be  the  disciples  of  Christ.  "  He  is  placed  in  a 
school  where  he  is  to  receive  faithful  instruction  and  disci- 
pline," p.  140.  "  The  children  of  believers  were  to  be  con- 
sidered and  treated  as  placed  in  the  school  of  Christ,"  p.  96. 
"  If  God  is  pleased  to  place  our  children  in  such  a  near  rela- 
tion to  us,  and  if  he  requires  us  to  consecrate  them  to  him, 
and  to  put  upon  them  the  sign  of  consecration,  the  mark  of 
discipleship,  that  is,  the  mark  of  their  being  placed  as  young 
disciples  in  the  school  of  Christ,"  &c.  p.  97.  Nay,  that  Dr.  W. 
will  not  contend  for  any  authority  in  the  commission  to  bap- 
tize infants,  unless  those  infants  are  disciples,  may  be  inferred 
from  his  so  frequent  mention  of  their  baptism  as  the  mark  of 
discipleship,  and  from  what  he  has  said,  p.  106.  "  The  word  he 
uses  is  (fAxB-yiTiv6^rx9,  they  were  proselyted,  or  made  disci- 
ples ;  the  very  word  which  Christ  had  used  in  his  commission 
to  his  apostles,  "  Go  ye,  make  disciples  of  all  nations."  The 
persons  referred  to,  Justin  says,  were  made  disciples  $k  zrxi- 
3<yy,  from  their  early  childhood.  The  wrord  is  applied  to  the 
little  children  whom  Christ  took  in  his  arms,  and  blessed.  It 
is  evident,  therefore,  that  Justin  understood  the  command  of 
Christ,  to  make  disciples  and  baptize,  as  applicable  to  little 
children."  Now  let  the  question  be  distinctly  proposed,  are 
infants  baptized  because  they  are  disciples  of  Christ  ?  Will 
our  Paedobaptist  brethren  affirm  that  the  infants  they  baptize 
are  disciples  in  the  scriptural  sense  and  use  of  that  term  ?  The 
command,  "  Go  make  disciples,  baptizing  them,"  is  scrip- 
ture language,  and  to  be  interpreted  accordingly.  Dr.  W. 
does  not  venture  to  call  infants  disciples  without  prefixing  the 
epithet  young,  an  epithet  which,  it  is  easy  to  perceive,  has 
some  effect  in  reconciling  our  feelings  to  the  unscriptural  use 
of  the  term.  But  neither  Dr.  W.  nor  any  other  Paedobaptist 
writer,  whose  mind  is  imbued  with  divine  truth,  and  who  has 
been  habituated  to  scripture  phraseology,  will  be  likely  to 


12  The  Commission. 

speak  or  write  long,  in  consistence  with  the  supposition,  that 
infants  are  disciples.  For  proof  of  this,  I  refer  you  to  p.  100, 
where  you  may  read  as  follows,  "  Certain  Judaizing  Chris- 
tians came  from  Judea  to  Antioch,  and  said  to  the  brethren 
there, '  Except  ye  be  circumcised  after  the  manner  of  Moses, 
ye  cannot  be  saved.'  Why  did  they  not  express  all  they 
meant,  and  say,  l  Except  ye  and  your  children  be  circumcis- 
ed, ye  cannot  be  saved  V  And,  afterwards,  in  v.  10.  when 
Peter  spoke  in  opposition  to  the  Judaizing  Christians,  in  re- 
gard to  this  same  subject,  and  said,  J  Why  tempt  ye  God  to 
put  a  yoke  upon  the  disciples?'  that  is,  why  do  ye  require  the 
disciples  to  be  circumcised,  why  did  he  not  in  so  many  words 
object  to  laying  this  burdensome  rite  upon  the  disciples  and 
their  children  ?  The  answer  to  both  questions  is  the  same. 
There  wras  no  occasion  for  the  mention  of  children,  because 
it  was  perfectly  understood  by  all,  that  children  were  to  be 
included  with  their  parents."  Beyond  all  doubt,  when  these 
lines  were  written,  the  thought  was  not  present  to  the  writers 
mind,  that  the  infants  were  as  truly  disciples  as  their  parents. 
On  the  contrary,  the  whole  force  of  his  argument  is  lost,  if 
the  term  disciples  be  supposed  to  include,  in  the  very  mean- 
ing of  the  term  itself,  the  children  with  their  parents.  His 
argument  is,  that  in  the  language,  the  children  are  not  in- 
cluded ;  for,  though  they  were  meant  to  be  included,  yet  all 
was  not  said  that  was  meant:  that  is,  the  children  were  not 
included  in  the  meaning  of  the  term  disciples,  but  in  the  un- 
expressed intention  of  Peter.  Now,  whatever  hesitation  we 
may  feel  in  following  Dr.  W.  when  he  decides  what  the 
apostle  meant  beyond  what  is  written ;  yet  we  may  readily 
perceive  that,  so  far  as  the  meaning  of  the  term  disciples 
is  concerned,  he  wrote  according  to  those  ideas  of  disci- 
pleship  which  he  had  learned,  not  from  the  baptismal  con- 
troversy, but  from  the  holy  scriptures;  and  by  allowing  that 
infants,  however  they  may  be  connected  with  their  parents 
who  are  disciples,  are  not  disciples  themselves,  and  are 
not  included  in  the  term  disciples  in  the  Apostles'  use  of  it, 
he  has  conceded  a  very  important  point.  It  appears  that 
something  more  is  necessary  to  constitute  a  disciple  than  to 
be  the  child  of  a  believer.  When  that  essential  of  disciple- 
ship  is  found  even  in  very  young  persons,  the  ordinance  of 
baptism  is  not  to  be  denied.  "  Justin  Martyr  speaks  of  per- 
sons who  were  made  disciples  to  Christ  from  their  infancy, 


The  Commission.  13 

tx  w*i$ai  from  their  early  childhood,"  p  .106,  107.  So  Paul 
declares  concerning  Timothy,  that  cc&o  /5^t(povg,from  infancy 
he  had  known  the  holy  scriptures,  2  Tim.  hi.  15.  For  a  per- 
son however  young,  to  be  descended  from  christian  parents, 
is  one  thing,  to  be  made  a  disciple  or  to  know  the  holy  scrip- 
tures, quite  a  different  thing.  In  page  107,  Dr.  W.  says, 
"  It  is  evident,  therefore,  that  Justin  understood  the  command 
of  Christ,  to  make  disciples,  and  baptize,  as  applicable  to  lit- 
tle children.  And  he  wrote  only  about  100  years  after  Mat- 
thew, who  records  that  command."  Here  again  wre  have 
scriptural  thought,  and  a  scriptural  mode  of  applying  the  com- 
mission. Neither  Justin,  nor  for  the  present,  Dr.  W.  speaks 
of  the  commission  as  applicable  to  any  but  disciples.  It  is 
for  this  application  precisely  that  I  would  contend,  and  this  is 
the  plain  and  obvious  meaning  of  the  commission, "  Go,  make 
disciples  of  all  nations  baptizing  them,"  ««tss,  that  is,  the 
disciples. 

It  is  a  peculiar  infelicity  of  error,  that  its  ablest  advocates 
are  often  unwarily  its  opponents.  Let  the  following  things 
in  the  Lectures  be  put  together.  1.  The  great  argument 
for  infant  baptism  is  suspended  upon  the  proper  interpretation 
and  application  of  the  commission,  see  p.  95.  2.  The  pro- 
per application  of  the  commission  to  baptize,  is  explained  to 
be  to  disciples,  even  when  very  young  persons  are  in  ques- 
tion, yea,  such  as  the  Saviour  took  into  his  arms,  and  blessed, 
p.  107. — 3.  It  is  argued  that  the  apostle  did  not  so  understand 
and  use  the  term  disciples,  as  to  include  the  children  of  be- 
lieving parents,  p.  100.  Were  it  right  to  triumph  over  con- 
cessions unwarily  made,  we  might  here  close  the  argument, 
and  accept  the  concessions  of  Dr.  W.,  as  yielding  to  us  all 
that  we  wish. 

In  my  next  letter,  I  shall  undertake  an  examination  of  th*e 
Abrahamic,  the  Mosaic,  and  the  Christian  covenants  or  dis- 
pensations.    In  the  mean  time,  I  am  very  affectionately,  yours, 

John. 


14  The  Commission. 


&ETTER  13. 


Dear  Brother — I  have  received,  and  carefully  perused  your 
communication,  containing  remarks  on  Dr.  Woods'  Lectures 
on  Infant  Baptism.  I  would,  in  like  manner,  offer  a  few  re- 
flections for  your  consideration. 

I  have  been  somewhat  disappointed,  in  not  finding  more 
originality  in  the  work.  True,  the  Dr.  has  given  to  his  per- 
formance some  appearance  of  novelty,  by  fixing  on  the  Com- 
mission as  the  hinge  of  his  argument,  but  many  others  have 
toiled  hard  to  find  Infant  Baptism  in  the  Commission  before, 
and  with  as  little  success;  for,  of  all  the  passages  to  which 
our  brethren  appeal  in  this  controversy,  this,  I  think,  is  the 
most  likely  to  disappoint  them. 

THE  COMMISSION. 

To  illustrate  the  manner  in  which  the  Apostles  must  have 
understood  the  commission,  Dr.  W.  has  recourse  to  the  ob- 
solete rite  of  circumcision.  "  The  same  rite  was  appointed 
for  parents  and  their  children,"  (male  children  only,  I  suppose, 
he  means,)  and  why  did  he- not  add  for  servants  also  ?  There 
are,  however,  too  many  discrepancies,  between  circumcision 
and  baptism,  to  admit,  without  a  plain  declaration  to  that  ef- 
fect, that  the  latter  came  in  the  room  of  the  former;  or  that 
the  Divine  Legislator,  had  any  reference  to  the  one,  when  he 
instituted  the  other.  To  what  purpose  is  it  to  insist  on  the 
excellency  and  spirituality  of  promises  and  requirements  made 
in  the  Old  Testament  ?  That  men  were  under  moral  govern- 
ment then,  as  well  as  now,  is  readily  admitted;  but  was  any 
thing  more  required  in  order  to  circumcision,  than  a  proof  of 
lineal  descent  from  Abraham  ?  Is  not  this,  in  effect,  the  ar- 
gument from  the  covenant  with  the  patriarch,  "  Abraham  was 
commanded  of  God  to  circumcise  himself,  and  his  male  chil- 
dren; and  all  that  were  born  in  his  house  and  bought  with  his 
money;  therefore,  all  Christian  parents,  without   any  com- 


The  Commission.  15 

mand,  ought  to  baptize,  that  is,  sprinkle  with  water,  all  their 
children,  both  male  and  female,  but  not  their  servants  ?"  I 
confess,  that  I  perceive  not  the  remotest  connexion  between 
the  parts  of  this  argument.  The  words  sign,  and  seal,  used 
by  the  Apostle,  Rom.  iv.  11,  are  thought  to  furnish  some  sup- 
port to  the  position,  that  baptism  has  come  in  the  room  of  cir- 
cumcision, but,  if  Dr.  Lightfoot's  version  of  that  passage  be  cor- 
rect, it  will,  in  a  great  measure,  overturn  the  argument  built 
upon  it.  "  And  he  received  the  sign  of  circumcision,  a  seal 
of  the  righteousness  of  faith,  which  should  be  hereafter, 
in  uncircumcision.  Not  what  had  been  to  Abraham,  as  yet 
uncircumcised;  but  which  should  be  to  his  seed  uncircumcis- 
ed;  that  is,  to  Gentiles,  that  should  hereafter,  imitate  the  faith 
of  Abraham."  Bryant's  abridgement  of  Booth's  Pcedobap- 
tism  examined,  p.  199. 

Dr.  Woods  seems  to  be  very  confident,  that  if  a  commission 
had  been  given  to  twelve  Jews,  to  proselyte  and  circumcise 
all  nations,  or  to  proselyte,  circumcise,  and  baptize  all  na- 
tions, they  would  have  necessarily  understood  infants  to  be 
included;  and  that  therefore,  when  the  Apostles  received  a 
commission,  to  proselyte  and  baptize  all  nations,  they  so  un- 
derstood it,  p.  44,  45.  If  circumcision  was  the  same  in  all 
respects  as  baptism,  and  being  proselyted  to  Judaism  was 
the  same  as  being  made  disciples  to  Christ,  the  conclusion 
would  be  just,  but  not  otherwise.  For  as  you  observe,  to 
proselyte  and  to  make  disciples  in  some  cases  are  very  diffe- 
rent things,  and  between  circumcision  and  baptism  there  are 
so  many  disparities,  that  they  will  not  admit  of  comparison, 
much  less  of  substitution. 

From  the  manner  in  which  Dr.  W.  speaks  of  the  commis- 
sion, one  would  think  that  it  was  delivered  in  very  ambiguous 
language,  and  that  it  was  of  exceedingly  difficult  interpreta- 
tion. "  Our  inquiry  is,  whether  the  language  employed  in 
Christ's  commission  to  baptize,  would  naturally  be  understood 
by  his  Apostles  as  extending  to  the  children  of  believers," 
p.  57.;  and  to  the  same  purport  in  other  places.  Such  an  in- 
quiry seems  to  me,  however,  to  contain  in  it  something  like 
a  reflection  on  the  wisdom  and  benevolence  of  our  Divine 
Master.  Where  shall  we  look  for  perspicuity  of  language 
and  sense,  if  not  in  the  commission  ?  Let  us  then  read  it, 
and  see.  "  Go  ye  into  all  the  world,  and  preach  the  gospel 
to  every  creature.     He  that  believeth  and  is  baptized,  shall  be 


16  Proselyte  Baptism. 

saved,  but  he  that  believeth  not,  shall  be  damned.  Go  teach 
all  nations,  baptizing  them,  &c.  That  repentance  and  re- 
mission of  sins  should  be  preached  in  his  name  among  all 
nations."  Of  infants,  the  commission  saith  nothing.  If  you 
inquire  of  their  baptism,  or  even  of  their  salvation,  it  remains 
equally  silent,  and  you  must  ask  elsewhere.  But,  says  Dr. 
W.,  "  As  the  Apostles  were  Jews,  and  had  been  accustomed 
to  see  parents  and  their  children  taken  into  the  church,  it  was 
natural  for  them  to  suppose,  that  the  commission  included 
children."  If  I  inferred  any  thing  from  the  commission  on 
this  subject,  it  would  be,  that,  as  the  gospel  is  to  be  preached 
to  all  nations,  to  every  creature,  then,  the  distinction  between 
Jews  and  Gentiles  is  done  away,  and  the  peculiarities  of  the 
Abrahamic  covenant  and  of  the  Mosaic  economy,  are  abolish- 
ed. The  Apostles  were  not  ignorant,  I  apprehend,  of  the 
doctrine  which  John  the  Baptist,  a  man  who  was  sent  from 
God,  had  inculcated  on  his  baptismal  occasions.  "  Think 
not  to  say  within  yourselves,  we  have  Abraham  to  our  Fa- 
ther." Do  not  some  of  the  arguments  for  Paedobaptism,  sa- 
vour of  this  very  sentiment,  which  John  the  Baptist  reprehends ; 
and  are  they  not  calculated  to  foster  the  spirit  which  he 
sought  to  repress  ?  Further,  they  knew  that  their  Lord  had 
represented  his  kingdom,  as  not  being  of  this  world,  and  that, 
in  order  to  enter  into  it  legitimately,  a  man  must  be  born 
again  of  water  and  of  the  spirit. 

PKOSELYTE  BAPTISM. 

The  remarks  introduced,  p.  47.  &c,  on  Jewish  proselyte 
baptism,  seem  to  me  entirely  irrelevant,  for  several  reasons. 

I.  There  is  no  evidence  that  such  a  practice  obtained 
among  the  Jews  before  the  Christian  era.  To  what  is  quot- 
ed from  Knapp.  p.  47.,  I  would  oppose  the  opinions  of  such 
men  as  Beza,  and  Dr.  Owen,  who,  with  many  learned  and 
pious  Pasdobaptists,  unite  in  representing  it  as  destitute  of 
any  support.  No  trace  of  it  appears  before  the  second  cen- 
tury ;  and  as  to  the  improbability  of  the  Jews  having  borrow- 
ed it  from  the  Christians,  it  may  be  observed,  that  however 
inconsistent  it  may  seem,  though  they  despised  and  rejected 
Jesus  of  Nazareth,  yet  they  thought  highly  of  John  the  Bap- 
tist, and  were  willing  for  a  season  to  rejoice  in  his  light;  and 
Josephus  speaks  respectfully  of  John,  and  of  James  the  just. 


Proselyte  Baptism.  17 

When  these  things  are  considered,  it  will  not,  perhaps,  seem 
an  incredible  thing,  that  the  Jews  should  have  borrowed  from 
the  Christians,  or  rather  from  John  the  Baptist,  the  practice 
of  immersion.  Knapp  appeals  to  the  testimony  of  all  the 
Rabbies,  and  to  the  universality  of  the  practice  in  the  second 
century;  but  Jewish  Rabbies,  and  usages  of  the  second  cen- 
tury are  dubious  evidence. 

Dr.  Gill,  who  was  well  qualified  to  judge  on  this  subject, 
writes  as  follows:  "  Now  since  it  appears  there  was  no  men- 
tion of  any  such  rite  or  custom  of  admitting  Jewish  prose- 
lytes by  baptism,  or  dipping,  to  the  Jewish  religion,  in  any 
writings  and  records  before  the  times  of  John,  Christ,  and 
his  Apostles;  nor  in  any  age  after  them,  for  the  first  three  or 
four  hundred  years;  or,  however,  before  the  writings  of  the 
Talmuds,  it  may  be  safely  concluded  there  was  no  such  cus- 
tom, which  had  obtained  in  that  interval  of  time."  Elsewhere 
he  writes  thus,  u  If  these  several  things  can  be  made  plain,  it 
is  indeed,  the  earliest  testimony  we  have  of  this  custom,  and 
serves  to  confirm  that  this  custom  is  a  pure  device  of  the 
Jewish  doctors,  and  is  merely  Rabbinical,  and  besides,  at 
most,  it  can  only  carry  up  this  custom  into  the  fifth  century." 
{Dissertation  concerning  the  Baptism  of  Jeicish  Proselytes.) 
He  does  not  agree  with  Dr.  Owen,  in  thinking  that  it  was 
adopted  in  imitation  of  John's  baptism,  but  that  it  arose  from 
a  general  notion  of  the  uncleanness  of  the  heathen,  in«their 
state  of  heathenism. 

2.  If  we  admit  the  existence  of  such  a  practice  before  the 
time  of  John  and  Christ,  still  it  does  not  appear  that  their 
baptism  could  have  been  derived  from  it.  The  proselytes 
dipped  themselves,  which  was  not  the  case  in  the  baptisms  of 
the  New  Testament.  Proselyte'  baptism  must  not  be  per- 
formed in  the  night,  or  on  a  feast  day,  or  on  the  Sabbath,  or 
when  there  were  not  three  witnesses  present,  whereas  the 
jailer  was  baptized  in  the  night,  the  three  thousand  on  the 
feast  of  Pentecost,  and  Lydia  seems  to  have  been  baptized  on 
the  Sabbath,  and  it  does  not  appear  that  there  were  any  wit- 
nesses present  at  the  baptism  of  Paul. 

3.  Suppose  after  all,  that  such  a  practice  did  exist  among 
the  Jews,  either  before  or  after  the  Christian  era,  and  that 
the  children  of  proselytes  were  baptized  with  their  parents,  it 
could  be  no  more  than  a  tradition  of  their  own,  as  they  had 
no  direction  or  authority  for  it  in  the  Old  Testament.     And 

b  2 


18  Household  Baptism. 

can  we  suppose,  that  our  Lord  had  any  regard  to  a  mere  hu- 
man invention,  when  instituting  one  of  the  most  sacred  and 
significant  rites  of  his  kingdom  ?  What !  he  who  told  the  Jews 
to  their  faces,  that  they  made  void  the  law  of  God  through 
their  traditions,  would  he  countenance  those  traditions  by  in- 
corporating one  of  them  into  his  sacred  code  ?  I  must  have 
some  very  strong  evidence  before  I  can  believe  this. 

HOUSEHOLD  BAPTISM. 

Dr.  Woods,  in  common  with  many  writers  on  his  side  of 
the  controversy,  is  disposed  to  make  much,  very  much,  of  the 
few  household  or  family  baptisms  recorded  in  the  New  Tes- 
tament.    On  this  subject  I  offer  three  or  four  remarks. 

1 .  Although  we  read  in  the  New  Testament  of  the  baptism 
of  many  thousands  of  believers,  yet  we  hear  of  but  three 
household  baptisms  among  them  all.  The  household  of  Ly- 
dia,  Acts  xvi.  14,  15.;  of  the  jailer,  verse  33.;  and  of  Ste- 
phanas, 1  Cor.  i.  16.  Do  not  our  brethren  forget  them- 
selves when  they  insist  so  much  on  household  baptism  ? 
Strange  indeed,  if  among  the  myriads  whose  baptisms  the 
New  Testament  mentions  or  implies,  there  should  not  be  found 
at  least,  three  households.  I  am  sorry  that  Dr.  Woods,  liv- 
ing as  he  does  in  the  midst  of  Baptists,  should  think  that  the 
baptism  of  households  is  such  an  uncommon  thing  among  us, 
p.  78-,  79.;  surely  he  ought  to  have  acquainted  himself  with 
our  history  and  practice,  before  he  published  his  book.  It  is 
by  no  means  so  rare  a  thing  as  he  would  represent,  for  whole 
families  to  be  baptized  among  us;  but  he  will  not  on  that  ac- 
count infer  that  we  baptize  infants.  Our  brethren,  who  com- 
municate accounts  of  revivals  and  baptisms,  frequently  mention, 
among  other  things,  the  bapfism  of  households,  but  we  never 
suspect  that  they  baptize  infants.  Many  families,  as  Booth 
observes,  consist  only  of  the  master,  the  mistress,  andthe  ser- 
vants; or  if  there  are  children,  they  may  be  all  grown  up.  It 
seems  to  be  altogether  a  childish  thing,  to  insist  that  there 
must  have  been  children  in  those  families  mentioned  in  con- 
nexion with  baptism  in  the  New  Testament.  It  may  be  sug- 
gested, that  in  any  given  neighbourhood,  nearly  one  half  of 
the  families  will  be  found  to  have  no  mere  infants  in  them. 
Dr.  Hammond  pronounces  it  an  unreasonable  thing,  to  infer 
infant  baptism  from  household  baptism.  In  general,  we  may 
apply  to  the  arguments  founded  on  these  premises,  what  Je- 


Household  Baptism.  19 

remy  Taylor  says  of  those  drawn  from  the  passage,  "  Suffer 
little  children  to  come  unto  me,  &.c."  "  They  prove  nothing 
so  much  as  the  want  of  better  arguments." 

I  have  mentioned  above  that  cases  of  household  baptism 
often  occurred  in  revivals,  but  no  revivals  of  modern  times 
can  be  compared  with  the  powerful  effects  of  the  Holy  Spirit 
which  accompanied  the  preaching  of  the  Apostles,  when  mul- 
titudes in  an  assembly  were  converted  at  once,  and  when  all 
that  were  gathered  together  in  a  house  received  the  Holy 
Ghost  at  the  same  moment,  as  was  the  case  in  the  house  of 
Cornelius,  so  that  no  man  could  forbid  water  for  the  baptism 
of  any  individual  in  the  whole  company.  Dr.  W.,  to  illustrate 
what  would  probably  occur  in  those  days  does  not  select  times 
of  revivals  for  his  purpose.  He  does  not  even  choose  the 
common  progress  of  religion  in  Christian  lands,  but  refers  to 
the  slow  introduction  of  it  in  heathen  countries,  by  the  pain- 
ful efforts  of  ordinary  and  uninspired  men.  He  asks,  p.  79., 
"  Should  we  not  think  it  very  singular  to  find  accounts  of  fa- 
mily baptisms  in  a  history  of  Baptist  Missions."  This  is  treat- 
ing the  subject  with  manifest  injustice  ! 

2.  The  argument  from  household  baptisms  if  insisted  on,  will 
prove  too  much;  it  will  require  that  not  infants  only,  but 
wicked  and  impenitent  children  and  servants  also  should  be 
baptized,  whenever  the  head  of  a  family  submits  to  that  ordi- 
nance; for  the  hinge  of  the  argument  is  the  term  household, 
and  they  are  a  part  of  the  family  as  well  as  the  infants  who 
may  be  in  it;  and  this  consequence  taken  in  connexion  with 
the  argument  from  circumcision  cannot  well  be  avoided. 
Some  Paedobaptists,  urged  on  by  something  like  an  idea  of 
consistency,  have  admitted  this,  and  have  contended,  in  theo- 
ry, at  least,  that  all  the  household  should  be  baptized;  but  I 
presume  that  there  are  not  many  who  would  be  willing  to  go 
so  fir  in  practice. 

The  following  incident  will  illustrate  the  difficulty  into 
which  this  argument  from  household  baptisms,  brings  our  Pae- 
dobaptist  brethren.     During  a  revival  of  religion  in  the  town 

of  N. in  a  neighbouring  state,  a  plain  man,  who  was  a 

farmer,  was,  among  others,  hopefully  converted,  and  felt  it 
his  duty  to  join  some  church.  He  himself  was  inclined  to  the 
Baptists,  but  his  wife  was  a  member  with  the  Presbyterians. 
He  thought  it  would  be  convenient  on  many  accounts  to  go 
with  his  wife,  and  was  desirous  to  be  accommodating,  but  had 


20  Household  Baptism. 

some  scruples,  especially  about  the  children  being  baptized. 
He  called  one  day  on  Dr.  R.,  the  Presbyterian  minister,  a 
friendly,  pleasant  man,  when  the  following  dialogue  ensued. 

Farmer.  I  have  come  to  converse  with  you  on  the  subject 
of  making  a  profession  of  religion.  As  my  wife  is  a  Presby- 
terian, it  would  be  very  desirable  that  we  should  walk  toge- 
ther; but,  I  have  some  difficulties  on  my  mind  :  perhaps,  you 
can  remove  them.  I  suppose,  if  I  should  join  your  church, 
it  will  be  expected  that  I  should  bring  forward  my  children 
for  baptism. 

Dr.  R.  Yes,  we  should  expect  it,  as  it  is  customary  among 
us. 

Farmer.  I  have  one  child  four  years  old,  can  that  be  bap- 
tized on  my  faith  ? 

Dr.  R.  O,  yes. 

Farmer.  I  have  another  seven  years  old,  can  that  be  ad- 
mitted likewise  ? 

Dr.  R.  Yes,  it  is  often  done;  T  see  no  difficulty. 

Farmer.  Well,  I  have  one  that  is  twelve  years  old,  can  that 
be  baptized  on  my  faith  ? 

Dr.  R.  (With  some  hesitation,)  Yes,  we  do  sometimes;  I 
see  no  difficulty. 

Farmer.  Well,  but  Dr.,  I  have  one  that  is  fourteen  years 
old,  can  that  one  be  baptized  on  my  faith  ? 

Dr.  R.  (With  considerable  embarrassment,)  Yes,  I  sup- 
pose so — yes,  I  see  no  difficulty. 

The  farmer,  turning  away  somewhat  abruptly,  exclaimed, 
Ah  !  Dr.,  I  have  not  half  enough  faith  for  myself. 

3.  The  things  which  are  spoken  of  the  three  households  of 
whose  baptism  the  New  Testament  furnishes  information,  for- 
bid the  conclusion,  that  there  were  any  mere  infants  in  them, 
in  our  sense  of  the  term.  Of  the  jailer  it  is  said,  "  they  spake 
to  him  the  word  of  the  Lord,  and  to  all  that  were  in  his  house." 
Moreover,  u  he  rejoiced,  believing  in  God,  with  all  his  house." 
The  household  of  Stephanas  "  addicted  themselves  to  the 
ministry  of  the  saints."  There  is  not  a  particle  of  evidence 
that  Lydia  had  either  a  husband,  or  children.  She  was  of 
Thyatyra,  and  Philippi  does  not  appear  to  have  been  the 
place  of  her  residence.  Her  household  is  understood  by  many 
to  be  afterwards  called  "  brethren."  There  are  three  house- 
holds mentioned  in  the  New  Testament,  of  whose  faith  and 
piety  we  can  have  no  doubt.     The  family  of  the  nobleman  at 


Household  Baptism.  21 

Capernaum,  John  iv.  53.  The  family  of  Cornelius  at  Cesa- 
rea,  Acts  x.  .2.;  and  the  family  of  Crispus  at  Corinth;  Acts 
xviii.  8.  And  is  it  not  as  credible  that  the  three  households 
baptized  by  the  Apostles  and  their  fellow  labourers  consisted 
of  believers  ? 

Our  author  is  disposed  to  make  much  of  the  silence  of  scrip- 
ture, p.  38,  39.  I  had  thought  that  Protestants  had  given  up 
arguing  from  this  uncertain  source  ever  since  they  left  Rome; 
but  it  seems  now  that  I  was  mistaken.  Well,  let  us  apply 
this  rule  to  the  subject  of  household  baptisms.  I  would  pro- 
pose to  prove  by  it,  first;  that  Crispus'  household,  Acts  xviii. 
8.,  though  they  were  believers  were  not  baptized  at  all;  while 
it  is  clear  enough,  that  he  himself  was  baptized  by  Paul;  1 
Cor.  i.  14.  Again,  I  would  prove  that,  although  Stephanas' 
household  was  baptized,  1  Cor.  i.  15.,  he  himself  never  was; 
and,  finally,  I  would  prove,  that  the  household  of  the  jailer 
were  not  only  baptized  on  his  faith,  but  that  they  might  be 
saved  also  on  the  same  principle,  for  the  Apostle  said,  "  Be- 
lieve (thou,)  and  thou  shalt  be  saved,  and  thy  house."  It 
would  be  just  as  easy  to  prove,  that  this  text  contains  a  pro- 
mise of  salvation  to  all  the  household,  when  the  head  becomes 
a  believer,  as  that  any  other  text  conveys  to  them  the  right  of 
being  baptized  upon  the  same  condition. 

Dr.  W.  would  have  it  understood  that  accounts  of  house- 
hold baptisms  occur  in  the  New  Testament  in  a  cursory  man- 
ner, as  if  they  were  very  common  things.  It  so  happens, 
however,  that  in  the  narratives  of  those  transactions  several 
important  hints  and  circumstances  are  so  interwoven,  that  no 
unprejudiced  inquirer  need  be  at  a  loss  as  to  the  description 
of  persons  of  which  those  households  were  composed. 

Yours  very  affectionately, 

David. 


22    The  Mosaic  Covenant —  The  Congregation  of  the  Lord. 


X.ETTEH  HE. 


My  Dear  Brother — In  the  close  of  my  last,  I  proposed  to 
consider  the  Abrahamic,  the  Mosaic,  and  the  Christian  cove- 
nants. A  clear  and  accurate  conception  of  the  nature  of  these 
covenants  is  indispensable,  in  order  to  a  just  appreciation  of 
the  arguments  in  favour  of  Infant  Baptism.  I  shall  devote 
the  present  letter  to  these  subjects,  and  shall  allow  myself  to 
profit  in  some  degree  by  the  labours  of  a  former  occasion,  on 
which  some  essays  that  you  may  have  seen  were  prepared  for 
a  religious  periodical. 

The  scriptural  meaning  of  the  word  covenant,  Dr.  Woods 
has  given  very  satisfactorily,  p.  121.  et  seq.;  I  have  nothing  to 
add  to  what  he  has  said,  or  to  take  away.  I  am  happy  to  find 
also,  that  I  shall  agree  with  him  in  believing  that  the  Mosaic 
dispensation  was  that  covenant,  which  is  called  the  first  cove- 
nant, in  the  epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  and  distinguished  from 
the  new  covenant,  or  gospel  dispensation,  p.  124.:  and,  that 
the  divine  transactions  with  Abraham  are  to  be  carefully  dis- 
tinguished from  the  Mosaic  covenant,  p.  34.;  though,  with 
respect  to  these  transactions,  he  has,  I  conceive,  fallen  into 
some  mistakes,  which  I  shall  hereafter  attempt  to  point  out. 

THE  MOSAIC  COVENANT THE  CONGREGATION  OF  THE  LORD. 

Although,  in  the  divine  purpose,  a  sufficient  sacrifice  for 
sin  had  been  provided  from  eternity,  yet,  it  did  not  seem  good 
to  Infinite  Wisdom  that  it  should  be  immediately  offered, 
when  sin  first  entered  into  the  world,  Jehovah  looked  over 
four  thousand  years  of  ignorance  and  crime,  to  that  period 
denominated  "  the  fulness  of  time,"  when  it  would  best  dis- 
play the  divine  perfections,  for  the  Redeemer  to  atone  for 
transgression  ;  and  repentance,  and  remission  of  sins  to  be 
preached  in  his  name,  among  all  nations.  As,  in  the  exer- 
cises of  an  individual  Christian,  the  discovery  of  salvation  in 
Christ  is  withheld,  until  an  anxiety  is  excited  in  his  breast, 
that  makes  the  discovery  welcome;  so  in  the  history  of  the 
world,  the  Messiah  makes  not  his  appearance,  until  mankind 


The  Mosaic  Covenant —  The  Congregation  of  the  Lord.    23 

have  felt  the  necessity  of  such  a  deliverer;  then  he  comes,  the 
desire  of  all  nations.  It  pleased  God  that  a  full  experiment 
should  be  made  of  man's  power  and  skill,  to  find  a  remedy 
for  his  moral  disease,  before  God's  remedy  for  the  healing  of 
the  nations  should  be  revealed  and  applied.  "  After  that,  in 
the  wisdom  of  God,  the  world  by  wisdom  knew  not  God,  it 
pleased  God,  by  the  foolishness  of  preaching,  to  save  them 
that  believe." 

The  experiment  which,  in  the  wisdom  of  God,  opened  the 
way  for  the  Redeemer's  entrance  into  the  world,  was  of  a 
two-fold  nature;  or,  rather,  there  were  two  distinct  experi- 
ments, demonstrating  distinct  truths.  When  the  bolder  ene- 
mies of  God  and  religion  make  their  appeal  from  the  volume 
of  inspiration  to  the  volume  of  nature,  and  assert  the  suffi- 
ciency of  the  latter  to  enlighten  and  direct  them  in  the  search 
after  God;  we  can  refer  to  actual  experiment,  to  ascertain 
how  far  fallen  man,  without  the  oracles  of  God,  can  advance 
toward  the  knowledge  of  the  Divine  character.  With  the 
light  of  nature,  the  bright  beams  of  science,  and  the  keen  eye 
of  natural  genius,  the  wisest  men  of  antiquity  stilly^  in  the 
dark,  after  the  unknown  God,  Acts  xvii.  27. 

When  the  more  insidious  enemies  of  religion  assert,  that 
man  has  sufficient  native  virtue,  if  properly  cultivated,  to  ren- 
der him  acceptable  to  God;  that  there  are  influences  of  the 
word,  or  spirit,  common  to  all  men,  which  are  sufficient, 
without  any  additional  special  influence,  to  bring  him  to  know, 
and  enjoy  the  Most  High;  we  have  in  the  wisdom  of  God,  an- 
other completed  experiment,  which  decides  against  this  doc- 
trine, with  as  much  certainty  as  is  any  where  to  be  found 
within  the  limits  of  experimental  philosophy.  In  the  sacred 
record  is  the  history  of  a  people,  who  had  the  advantage  over 
every  other  people  much,  every  way.  They  were  not  left  to 
read  the  volume  of  nature  only;  but  to  them  were  committed 
the  oracles  of  God.  They  were  not  left  with  unmeaning 
forms,  and  unauthorized  rites  of  religion;  but  they  had  ordi- 
nances of  divine  service,  instituted  on  the  authority  of  God. 
"  To  them  pertained  the  adoption,  and  the  glory,  and  the  co- 
venants, and  the  giving  of  the  law,  and  the  service  of  God,  and 
the  promises."  Nor  were  they  without  instructors  in  reli- 
gion; but  holy  men  were  raised  up  among  them,  who  spake 
as  they  were  moved  by  the  Holy  Ghost.  Neither  were  they 
without  motives  to  obedience;  but  a  covenant  was  made  with 


24    The  Mosaic  Covenant —  The  Congregation  of  the  Lord. 

them,  containing  every  threat  which  might  deter — every  pro- 
mise that  might  allure.  The  experiment  was  made  fairly  and 
completely.  Jehovah  himself  said,  "  What  could  have  been 
done  more  to  my  vineyard,  that  I  have  not  done  ?"  And 
what  was  the  result  ?  It  was  clearly  demonstrated  that  man 
is  totally  depraved;  that  the  best  institutions,  instructions,  and 
motives,  with  all  common  influences  of  the  Spirit,  whatever 
such  there  may  be,  are  altogether  insufficient  to  restore  his 
fallen  nature;  and  that  a  direct,  special  influence  upon  his 
heart,  by  the  effectual  working  of  Divine  power,  is  indispen- 
sably necessary,  in  order  to  make  him  delight  in  the  law  of 
God,  and  render  acceptable  obedience  to  its  holy  requirements. 
See  Heb.  viii.  8,  9,  10. 

That  society  of  persons  which  was  the  subject  of  the  last 
mentioned  experiment,  is  frequently  denominated  the  congre- 
gation of  the  Lord.  It  appears  to  have  been  the  only  divine- 
ly instituted  society,  organized  for  religious  worship  that  ever 
existed  before  the  coming  of  Christ.  That  God  designed  by 
the  Mosaic  dispensation,  of  which  this  congregation  was  the 
subject  to  give  a  clear  demonstration  of  man's  depravity,  may 
be  inferred  from  the  end  which  has  actually  been  accomplish- 
ed, and  from  such  declarations  of  scripture  as  the  following: 
"  The  law  was  added  because  of  transgression  until  the  seed 
should  come.  The  law  entered  that  the  offence  might  abound." 
Since  unto  God  all  his  works  from  the  beginning  are  known, 
he  well  knew  the  imperfections  of  the  Mosaic  covenant,  even 
from  the  time  of  its  institution,  and  what  would  be  the  result 
of  the  experiment.  He  found  fault  with  it  long  before  its  ab- 
rogation; and  so  prepared  it  at  first,  that  it  typified  and  fore- 
told a  better  covenant  that  should  succeed  it,  established  upon 
better  promises. 

The  first  account  that  the  scriptures  give  of  the  congrega- 
tion of  the  Lord,  we  find  in  the  twelfth  chapter  of  Exodus. 
When  a  new  order  of  things  was  introduced;  when  the  year 
received  a  new  beginning,  and  became,  as  it  has  been  called, 
the  ecclesiastical  year;  when  God  tbok  his  people  by  the  hand, 
to  lead  them  out  of  the  land  of  Egypt;  (Heb.  viii.  9.)  when 
that  code  of  laws  for  the  regulation  of  religious  worship,  which 
the  Apostle  means  by  the  first  covenant  throughout  his  epis- 
tle to  the  Hebrews,  began  to  be  promulgated;  and  the  pass- 
over,  as  one  of  the  ordinances  of  divine  service  pertaining  to 
the  first  covenant  was  instituted;  then,  first,  are  the  Israelites 


The  Mosaic  Covenant —  The  Congregation  of  the  Lord.    25 

recognised  as  a  worshipping  congregation.  Before  this,  the 
word  of  the  Lord  had  come  to  individuals,  and  individuals  had 
performed  religious  rites;  but  now,  the  word  is  sent  to  a  whole 
congregation,  and  that  congregation,  by  divine  appointment, 
perform  a  rite  of  divine  worship  simultaneously.  Before  this, 
the  Israelites  had  indeed  been  distinguished  from  the  rest  of 
mankind;  but,  not  by  the  characteristics  of  a  worshipping  so- 
ciety. That  there  were  persons  among  them  who  worship- 
ped God,  in  sincerity  and  truth,  will  not  be  disputed.  But 
where  were  their  public  altars  ?  Where  was  their  sanctuary  ? 
Where  were  their  public  ministers  of  religion  ?  Where  were 
their  appointed  sacrifices  ?  Where  their  statute  book,  the  laws 
of  their  worship,  the  rules  of  their  society,  &c?  A  worship- 
ping society,  without  forms,  and  rites, -and  rules  of  worship, 
God  never  constituted. 

The  seed  of  Abraham  were  destined  to  be  the  subjects  of 
special  dispensations,  throughout  all  their  generations.  This 
appears  no  less  in  their  history  since  the  Christian  era,  and 
before  their  deliverance  from  Bgyptinn  bondage,  than  in  the 
intermediate  time.  But,  during  all  this  intermediate  time, 
they  were  the  subjects  of  that  peculiar,  experimental,  prepa- 
ratory dispensation,  which  we  have  been  considering.  They 
were  constituted,  and  continued  to  be  the  Lord's  peculiar 
people,  his  only  worshipping  congregation,  1  Chr.  xxviii.  8. 
Mic.  ii.  5.  But  while  the  ordinances  of  their  worship  were 
wisely  contrived  to  be  types  and  prophecies  of  Christ,  at  the 
same  time  that  they  afforded  to  the  world  that  experiment, 
which  appears  to  have  been  so  important  a  part  of  their  de- 
sign; in  like  manner,  an  instructive  intimation  of  the  future 
exclusion  of  the  Jews  from  gospel  privileges,  and  of  the  ad- 
mission of  the  Gentiles,  appears  to  have  been  given,  in  the 
characters  of  those  members  who  composed  this  sacred  con- 
gregation. The  great  body  of  its  constituents  were  the  de- 
scendants of  Abraham;  but  provision  was  made  in  its  charter, 
that  Israelites  should  be  excluded,  and  that  Gentiles  might  be 
admitted.  Deut.  xxiii.  1.  8.  Exod.  xii.  43.  47.  Nothing  like 
this  can  be  found  in  the  covenant  made  with  Abraham  and 
his  seed,  as  recorded  in  the  17th  chapter  of  Genesis.  This 
covenant  received  into  its  arms  every  circumcised  son  of  Ja- 
cob, (in  whom  the  seed  was  ultimately  called,)  without  any 
exception;  and  thrust  from  its  embrace  every  G|enti!e,  with- 
out any  distinction.     It  was,  indeed,  one  of  its  stipulations 

c 


26    The  Mosaic  Covenant —  The  Congregation  of  the  Lord. 

that  every  Israelite  should  have  all  the  males  of  his  house  cir- 
cumcised; but  there  is  no  intimation  that  they  were  all  there- 
by incorporated  among  the  covenant  seed,  or  that  they  had 
more  right  to  the  territory  granted  in  the  covenant,  than  had 
Ishmael,  or  the  sons  of  Keturah.  Jacob's  servants  were  cir- 
cumcised; but  they  did  not  become  heads  of  tribes  in  Israel; 
which  they  must  have  been,  had  circumcision  endowed  them 
with  the  privileges  of  the  covenant  seed. 

When  the  end  for  which  any  society  was  instituted  has  been 
accomplished,  it  is  natural  to  expect  its  dissolution.  The  ex- 
periment for  which  the  congregation  of  the  Lord  had  been 
organized,  was  completely  made,  when  the  Redeemer  appear- 
ed, in  the  end  of  the  world,  "  to  take  away  sin  by  the  sacri- 
fice of  himself."  The  first  covenant  established  upon  condi- 
tional promises,  was  proved,  upon  due  trial,  to  be  faulty,  weak, 
and  unprofitable;  and  the  necessity  of  a  better  covenant, 
whose  better  promises  should  be  all  yea  and  amen  in  Christ 
Jesus  was  clearly  demonstrated:  "  He  taketh  away  the  first, 
that  he  may  establish  the  second."  When,  "  There  was  a  dis- 
annulling of  the  commandment  going  before,"  in  which  was 
contained  the  charter  of  the  congregation  of  the  Lord,  the 
society  was  dissolved.  Deprived  of  the  character  of  a  wor- 
shipping congregation,  it  lost  its  existence.  The  wall  that 
had  enclosed  it  from  the  rest  of  mankind,  was  broken  down, 
when  its  ordinances  were  nailed  to  the  cross  of  Christ.  Eph. 
ii.  14.  15. 

Dr.  W.  admits,  p.  129,  that  a  very  great  change  took  place 
when  the  people  of  God  passed  from  the  Mosaic  to  the  Chris- 
tian economy.  Whether  the  change  was  the  extension  of  a 
charter,  the  Apostle  decides.  "  For  there  is  verily,  a  disan- 
nulling of  the  commandment  going  before,  for  the  weakness 
and  unprofitableness  thereof.  If  the  first  covenant  had  been 
faultless,  then  should  no  place  have  been  sought  for  the  se- 
cond. He  taketh  away  the  first,  that  he  may  establish  the  se- 
cond." Heb.  vii.  18.,  viii.  7.,  x.  9.  Between  the  disannulling 
and  the  extending  of  a  charter,  the  difference  is  too  obvious 
to  be  overlooked.  But  Dr.  W.  thinks,  that  there  ran  through 
the  Mosaic  dispensation,  and  was  contained  in  it,  a  spiritual 
and  unchangeable  covenant,  the  same  as  that  made  with 
Abraham.     Respecting  this  covenant  we  shall  next  inquire. 


The  Abrdhamic  Covenant — The  Seed  of  Abraham.      27 


THE  ABRAHAMIC  COVENANT THE  SEED  OF  ABRAHAM. 

What  is  said  by  the  Apostle  in  the  third  chapter  of  Gala- 
tians,  is  relied  on  for  proof,  that  the  Abrahamic  covenant  was 
distinct  from  the  Mosaic,  and  that  it  was  spiritual  and  un- 
changeable, p.  34.  But,  the  covenant  of  which  the  Apostle 
there  speaks,  is  not  the  covenant  of  circumcision.  It  was 
made  430  years  before  the  giving  of  the  Law.  By  comput- 
ing this  period  backward  from  the  giving  of  the  law,  we  ar- 
rive at  the  time  when  Abraham  was  called  out  of  Ur  of  the 
Chaldees,  twenty-four  years  before  the  covenant  of  circum- 
cision. But  I  would  not  rely  so  much  on  this  computation  of 
years,  were  it  not  that  the  promise  to  which  the  Apostle  re- 
fers in  verse  8,  was  made  to  Abraham  precisely  at  this  time. 
"  A/«0h%d,  appointment,  plan,  establishment,  is  sometimes  a 
will,  or  testament ;  sometimes  a  promise ;  sometimes  a  pre- 
cept ;  sometimes  a  compact ;  and  sometimes  an  economy,  or 
method  of  acting."  p.  121,  122.  The  hce^x,*},  covenant, 
referred  to  in  Gal.  hi.,  is  a  promise.  It  is  expressly  called  so 
in  v.  17.  The  promise  intended,  and  which  is  cited  in  v.  8, 
having  been  originally  made  24  years  before  the  covenant  of 
circumcision,  is  mentioned  again  a  short  time  after  the  mak- 
ing of  that  covenant.  "  All  the  nations  of  the  earth  shall  be 
blessed  in  him."  Gen.  xviii.  18.  During  all  this  time,  Isaac, 
in  whom  the  seed  was  to  be  called,  was  in  the  loins  of  his  fa- 
ther Abraham.  Several  years  after  the  birth  of  Isaac,  this 
promise  was  renewed  and  confirmed  by  an  oath.  Gen.  xxii. 
16.  18.  It  is  not  now  made  as  before,  to  Abraham,  but  to 
his  seed,  because  of  the  circumstance  that  Isaac  had  been 
born.  "  In  thy  seed  shall  all  the  nations  of  the  earth  be  bless- 
ed." It  was  afterwards  repeated  to  Isaac,  Gen.  xxvi.  4,  and 
to  Jacob,  Gen.  xxviii.  14.  This  is  the  great  promise  which 
Peter  called,  "  The  covenant  which  God  made  with  our  fa- 
thers." Acts  iii.  25.  Because  of  the  spiritual  import  of  this 
promise,  Paul  calls  it  the  gospel,  Gal.  iii.  8.,  a  name  which 
he  no  where  gives,  either  to  circumcision,  or  to  the  covenant 
of  circumcision.  The  circumstance  that  this  gospel  promise 
was  made  before  the  giving  of  the  law,  and  before  circum- 
cision, is  insisted  on  by  the  Apostle  in  this  chapter,  and  in 
Rom.  iv.,  as  proof  that  gospel  blessings  belong  not  to  those 
who  are  of  the  law  or  of  circumcision,  but  to  those  who  are 


28      The  Abrahamic  Covenant — The  Seed  of  Abraham. 

of  faith.  That  there  were  persons  under  the  covenant  of  cir- 
cumcision before  the  time  of  Moses,  and  under  the  law  af- 
terwards, who  obtained  the  inheritance  of  Abraham,  namely, 
that  gospel  blessing  which  was  his  chief  wealth,  is  abundant- 
ly clear;  but  then  they  obtained  this  blessing  not  by  the  law, 
nor  by  circumcision,  but  by  that  faith  which  distinguished  the 
Patriarch  at  the  time  he  received  the  promise.  It  is  on  this 
ground  the  Apostle  argues,  that  Gentiles  without  the  law  and 
without  circumcision,  may  by  faith,  obtain  the  gospel  blessing 
as  Abraham  did.  Their  connexion  is  not  with  the  circum- 
cised, but  with  the  uncircumcised  Abraham,  and  the  line  of 
that  connexion  runs  down  aside,  both  from  the  law  and  from 
the  covenant  of  circumcision.  That  the  gospel  promise  ran 
also  through  the  covenant  of  circumcision  and  through  the 
law  is  not  denied,  but  it  perpetuated  neither.  Both  the  co- 
venant of  circumcision  and  the  giving  of  the  law,  may  be  re- 
garded as  proofs  of  God's  favour  as  promised  to  Abraham  on 
the  ground  of  his  faith,  but  their  being  added  long  after  the 
original  promise,  proves  that  they  are  not  essential  to  it,  and 
the  promise  may  be  made  good  to  all  who  believe  as  did  Abra- 
ham, though  they  be  not  circumcised,  and  keep  not  the  law. 

As  that  covenant  which  consisted  in  'promise  made  to  the 
believing,  uncircumcised  Abraham,  differed  from  the  covenant 
of  circumcision  and  the  law;  so  there  are  two  seeds  of  Abra- 
ham, differing  from  each  other;  the  one,  the  children  of  pro- 
mise, Gal.  iii.  18.  29.  iv.  28.;  the  other,  they  who  are  the 
children  of  the  flesh,  Rom.  ix.  7,  8.  The  former  are  the 
spiritual,  the  latter,  the  literal  seed.  That  circumcision  and 
the  law  are  to  be  coupled  together,  in  contrast  to  faith  and 
the  promise,  is  clear  from  Rom.  iv.  9.  14. 

Many  persons  err  greatly  in  their  interpretation  of  the  sa- 
cred volume,  by  overlooking  the  plain,  simple  meaning  of  its 
language,  and  searching  for  mystical  allusions,  or  spiritual 
meaning,  in  almost  every  text  they  read.  There  may  be 
others  who  err  on  the  opposite  extreme,  by  refusing  to  receive 
that  instruction  which  the  Holy  Ghost  intended  to  convey  in 
figures  and  types.  But  the  most  absurd  interpreters  are  those 
who  unite  the  mystical  or  spiritual,  with  the  literal,  and  de- 
termine, by  the  dictates  of  an  uninspired  judgment,  or  of  a  de- 
praved will,  how  much  is  simple  truth,  and  how  much  is  figure. 

The  seed  of  Abraham,  in  the  strictly  literal  sense,  are 
doubtless,  his  descendants  by  ordinary  generation.     His  im- 


The  Abrahamic  Covenant — The  Seed  of  Abraham.     29 

mediate  offspring,  were  Isaac,  Ishmael,  and  the  six  sons  by 
Keturah,  named  in  Gen.  xxv.  2.  These  last  are  not  said  to 
be  the  seed  of  Abraham;  yet,  without  doubt,  they  were  his 
seed  in  the  sense  in  which  Ishmael  is  so  termed,  in  chap.  xxi. 
13.  By  a  sovereign  act  of  God,  the  covenant  which  secured 
the  literal  Canaan  to  the  literal  seed  of  Abraham  was  esta- 
blished with  Isaac,  to  the  exclusion  of  Abraham's  other  sons; 
and  with  Jacob  to  the  exclusion  of  Esau.  Instructive  inti- 
mations were  hereby  given,  of  which  the  Apostle  has  spoken, 
Rom.  ix. 

The  all  wise  God,  who  instituted,  for  the  congregation  of 
the  Lord,  such  ceremonies  of  worship,  as  would  serve  for 
types  of  things  to  come,  in  his  providence,  so  regulated  the 
events  of  ancient  times,  that  much  of  the  Old  Testament  his- 
tory also  was  typical     We  learn  from  Paul's  epistle  to  the 
Galatians,  that  the  history  of  Abraham,  and  his  two  sons  was 
an  allegory.     Isaac  was  the  representative  of  all  the  spiritual 
sons  of  God:  Ishmael,  of  those  who  are  under  the  bondage 
of  the  law,  and  have  only  a  natural  relation  to  the  great  Fa- 
ther of  all.     To  be  as  Isaac  was,  is  to  be  heir  of  the  promise 
of  future  glory.     Isaac's  birth  was  out  of  the  course,  and 
above  the  powers  of  nature,  and  was  effected  by  Divine  power, 
in  fulfilment  of  a  promise  going  before.     In  like  manner  the 
spiritual  Isaacs  are  born,  not  of  blood,  nor  of  the  will  of  the 
flesh,  nor  of  the  will  of  man,  but  of  God;  and  according  to 
his  purpose  and  grace,  given  in  Christ  Jesus,  before  the  world 
began.     The  circumcision  of  Isaac,  the  persecution  which  he 
suffered,  and  his  right,  by  virtue  of  a  divine  covenant,  to  the 
land  of  Canaan;  serve  to  represent  the  regeneration  of  the 
spiritual  seed,  the  persecutions  they  endure,  and  their  right 
to  eternal  life,  founded  on  the  promise  of  God  that  cannot  lie. 
In  the  literal  sense,  Abraham's  seed  was  called  in  Isaac,  and 
the  inheritance  was  made  exclusively  his.     In  the  allegorical, 
Abraham's  seed  are  those,  and  those  only,  who  are  the  chil- 
dren of  promise  as  Isaac  was :  "  If  ye  be  Christ's,  then  are 
ye  Abraham's  seed,  and  heirs  according  to  the  promise.  Nei- 
ther because  they  are  the  seed  of  Abraham,  are  they  all  chil- 
dren: but,  in  Isaac  shall  thy  seed  be  called;  that  is,  they  which 
are  the  children  of  the  flesh,  these  are  not  the  children  of  God: 
but  the  children  of  promise  are  counted  for  the  seed.     He  is   . 
not  a  Jew  which  is  one  outwardly ;  neither  is  that  circum- 
cision which  is  outward  in  the  flesh.     He  is  a  Jew  which 

c2 


30     The  Abrahdmic  Covenant — The  Seed  of  Abraham. 

is  one  inwardly  ;  and  circumcision  is  that  of  the  heart, 
in  the  spirit,  and  not  in  the  letter ;  whose  praise  is  not 
of  men,  but  of  God."  Can  any  doctrine  be  proved  from 
scripture,  if  these  texts  do  not  prove  that  Abraham's 
seed  may  be  interpreted  both  literally  and  allegorically;  and 
that  in  the  allegorical  sense,  none  are  his  seed  but  real  Chris- 
tians ?  If  any  doubt  can  remain  on  this  last  point,  let  it  be 
removed  by  this  text:  "  Therefore  it  is  of  faith,  that  it  might  be 
by  grace ;  to  the  end  the  promise  might  be  sure  to  all  the  seed." 

There  are  other  instances  in  scripture,  of  such  figurative 
language,  as  that  by  which  regenerated  persons  are  called  the 
seed  or  children  of  Abraham.  As  Jabal  was  the  father  of 
such  as  dwell  in  tents,  and  of  such  as  have  cattle:  as  Jubal 
was  the  father  of  all  such  as  handle  the  harp  and  organ;  Gen. 
iv.  20,  21;  as  Satan  is  the  father  of  all  who  do  his  works;. 
John  viii.  44.  1  John  hi.  10;  so  Abraham  is  the  father  of  all 
who  walk  in  the  steps  of  his  faith,  and  are  justified  by  the 
same  righteousness,  Rom.  iv.  11,  12.  "  If  ye  were  Abra- 
ham's children,  ye  would  do  the  work  of  Abraham."  John 
viii.  39. 

Either  to  the  literal  descendants  of  Abraham,  or  to  the 
spiritual  seed,  who  are  characterized  as  possessing  genuine 
faith,  and  having  the  sure  promise  of  eternal  life;  every  text 
of  scripture,  it  is  presumed,  refers,  in  which  mention  is  made 
of  the  seed  of  Abraham.  Though  commentators  find  some 
difficulty  in  fixing  the  sense  of  Gal.  iii.  16,  yet,  they  agree, 
that,  either  Christ  personal,  as  a  literal  descendant  of  Abra- 
ham, is  meant;  or  Christ  mystical,  as  including  the  spiritual 
seed  just  mentioned. 

That  the  covenant  of  circumcision,  made  with  Abraham 
respected  his  literal  descendants,  the  instrument  itself,  and  the 
fulfilment  of  its  stipulations  to  the  natural  seed  clearly  prove. 
Men's  minds  have  been  confused  by  interpreting  this  cove- 
nant partly  literally,  and  partly  allegorically;  and,  in  the  ob^ 
scurity  which  has  arisen  from  this  confusion,  inferences  have 
been  deduced,  that  a  consistent  interpretation  will  by  no 
means  warrant.  Who  will  affirm  that  no  part  of  the  cove- 
nant is  to  be  understood  literally  ?  Who  will  maintain  that 
the  nations  which  were  to  be  made  of  Abraham,  were  to  be 
spiritual  nations  ?  that  the  kings  which  were  to  come  out  of 
him,  were  spiritual  kings  ?  that  the  circumcision  which  was 
enjoined  upon  him,  to  be  performed  un^n  himself  and  his 


The  Abrahamic  Covenant — The  Seed  of  Abraham.     31 

household  was  the  circumcision  of  the  heart  ?  and  that  the 
territory  granted  in  the  covenant  was  the  heavenly  Canaan  ? 
It  is,  by  no  means,  necessary  to  deny  that  such  an  allegorical  in- 
terpretation may  be  made  out,  as  will  be  both  scriptural  and 
full  of  important  instruction.  But  it  may  be  affirmed,  if  some 
parts  must  be  understood  literally,  that  either  the  whole  is 
susceptible  of  a  literal  interpretation,  or  it  admits  of  no  inter- 
pretation that  is  consistent  with  itself. 

A  particular  examination  of  the  several  parts  of  this  cove- 
nant would  be  tedious,  and  for  the  present  purpose,  unneces- 
sary. It  may  be  well,  however,  to  observe,  that  the  promise, 
"  I  will  be  a  God  to  thee,  and  to  thy  seed  after  thee,"  secur- 
ed special  divine  protection  and  favour  to  the  Hebrew  nation, 
without  a  necessary  implication  of  spiritual  blessing,  to  the 
individuals  comprising  that  nation.  The  promise  that  Abra- 
ham should  be  the  father  of  many  nations,  has  been  thought 
incapable  of  a  literal  interpretation,  and  has  been  supposed  to 
mean,  that  Abraham  was  constituted  the  head  of  the  church, 
throughout  all  nations  and  generations.  He  who  will  take 
the  pains  to  read,  Gen.  xxv.  16.  will  learn  that  twelve  nations 
sprang  from  one  of  Abraham's  sons;  and,  if  he  will  bear  in 
mind  that  Abraham  had  seven  other  sons,  he  will  be  con- 
strained to  acknowledge  that  Abraham  was  the  father  of 
many  nations,  in  a  sense  as  literal  as  that  in  which  Ishmael 
was  the  father  of  twelve.  The  Apostle,  it  is  true,  in  Rom. 
iv.  17.  interprets  this  clause  alkgorically;  but  to  deny  the 
literal  interpretation  of  the  words,  because  they  are  suscepti- 
ble of  an  allegorical,  is  as  absurd,  as  to  deny  that  Abraham's 
natural  seed  had  the  promise  of  the  earthly  Canaan,  because 
his  spiritual  seed  are  the  heirs  of  eternal  glory. 

In  the  literal  sense,  in  which  Abraham's  seed  are  his  natu- 
ral descendants,  no  others  are  included.  Whoever  may  en- 
joy divine  favour,  and  inherit  exceedingly  great  and  precious 
promises;  no  provision  was  made  in  this  covenant,  for  the 
extension  of  its  grant  beyond  the  seed  of  Abraham.  By  the 
precept  contained  in  the  covenant,  the  children  of  Israel, 
throughout  their  generations  were  required  to  circumcise  all  the 
males  of  their  household:  but  it  does  not  appear  that  the  pro- 
mises of  the  covenant  were  inherited  by  any  but  the  real  seed. 
Abraham's  other  sons,  and  Esau,  and  all  the  male  servants  of 
Abraham,  Isaac,  and  Jacob,  were  circumcised  in  obedience 
to  this  precept;  but  the  blessings  of  the  covenant  were  not 


32      The  Abrahamic  Covenant —  The  Seed  of  Abraham. 

thereby  secured  to  them.  Surely  the  servants  of  Jacob's  sons 
were  not  more  highly  privileged  than  the  servants  of  these  pa- 
triarchs themselves.  Nay,  it  is  expressly  said,  that  these  ser- 
vants were  not  his  seed,  "  Every  man-child  in  your  genera- 
tion, which  is  not  of  thy  seed,  must  needs  be  circumcised." 
Gen.  xvii.  12,  13.  When  the  congregation  of  the  Lord  was 
instituted,  proselytes  were  admitted  to  its  privileges;  but  the 
covenant  with  Abraham  was  unchanged.  The  congregation 
of  the  Lord  has  long  been  dissolved,  but  the  seed  of  Abraham 
still  exist,  and  will  hereafter  be  gathered  to  their  own  Messiah. 

The  spiritual  sense  includes  all  regenerate  persons,  and  no 
others.  Some  have  thought  that  church  membership,  or  pro- 
fessed faith,  rather  than  regeneration,  or  real  faith  constitutes  a 
child  of  Abraham;  but  hypocritical  professors  and  counterfeit 
faith  cannot  be  meant,  in  such  texts  as  these;  "  If  ye  be  Christ's, 
then  are  ye  Abraham's  seed,  and  heirs  according  to  the  pro- 
mise. Therefore  it  is  of  faith,  that  it  might  be  by  grace,  to 
the  end  the  promise  might  be  sure  to  all  the  seed."  Others 
have  carried  the  unscriptural  thought  further,  and  have  in- 
cluded with  professing  believers,  all  their  infant  children.  But 
in  what  sense  are  these  the  seed  of  Abraham  ?  In  the  literal, 
or  spiritual  ?  Not  in  the  spiritual,  unless  they  possess  faith; 
not  in  the  literal,  if  they  are  of  Gentile  extraction.  If  to  be- 
come a  church  member  were  to  become  a  child  of  Abraham; 
then  believers'  baptism  is  the  doctrine  to  which  the  correct 
interpretation  of  the  Abrahamic  covenant  would  lead.  Gen- 
tiles cannot  be  the  seed  of  Abraham  but  by  faith. 

What  a  work  of  confusion  does  it  make  to  begin  with  the 
allegorical  interpretation,  and  demonstrate  that  believers  are 
Abraham's  seed;  and  then,  having  substituted  professed  faith 
for  real,  to  introduce  a  detached  fragment  of  the  literal  inter- 
pretation, and  so  incorporate  it  with  the  allegorical,  as  to  in- 
clude with  these  professed  believers,  their  natural  offspring; 
taking  care,  by  a  rule  of  one's  own  fancy  and  contrivance,  to 
limit  this  literal  seed,  to  the  immediate  and  infant  descendants ! 
By  this  mixture  of  interpretations,  the  immediate,  infant,  lite- 
ral offspring  of  those  who  ought  to  be  according  to  their  pro- 
fession, the  spiritual  children  of  Abraham,  are  reckoned  for 
the  seed:  but  they  are  a  seed,  who,  alas  !  inherit  neither  the 
literal,  nor  the  spiritual  promises  of  the  patriarch.  Surely  a 
faith  and  practice,  dependant  on  such  interpretations  of  scrip- 
ture as  this,  have  a  poor  claim  to  divine  authority. 


The  Abrahamic  Covenant — The  Seed  of  Abraham.     33 

Dr.  W.  says,  "  the  covenant  of  which  circumcision  was 
appointed  to  be  the  seal,  was  spiritual,  gracious,  and  immu- 
table." We  have  seen  that  it  was  both  literal  and  spiritual. 
In  both  senses  it  was  gracious.  Whether  it  was  immutable 
in  the  literal  sense,  and  whether  it  was  immutable  in  the  spi- 
ritual sense,  are  distinct  questions.  That  a  covenant  may 
have  a  spiritual  meaning  which  remains  imperishable,  when 
as  to  its  literal  meaning,  it  has  been  disannulled,  the  epistle  to 
the  Hebrews  clearly  decides;  for  a  large  part  of  that  epistle 
was  written  to  prove,  that  the  Mosaic  covenant  was  done 
away,  as  to  its  literal  meaning,  but  perpetuated,  as  to  its 
spiritual.  The  covenant  of  royalty  with  David  seems  to  be 
another  of  this  kind.  That  the  covenant  of  circumcision,  in 
its  spiritual  meaning,  is  unchangeable,  will  not  be  denied. 
Let  it  be  remembered,  however,  thai  in  this  meaning  it  re- 
quires the  spiritual  circumcision:  not  that  circumcision  which 
is  outward  in  the  flesh,  nor  any  other  outward  ordinance, 
which  may  be  supposed  to  be  a  substitute  for  it;  but  "  the 
circumcision  of  the  heart,  in  the  spirit,  and  not  in  the  letter, 
whose  praise  is  not  of  men,  but  of  God."  Whether  the  co- 
venant of  circumcision  in  its  literal  import,  has,  like  the  Mo- 
saic covenant,  been  disannulled,  is  a  question  on  which  I  would 
not  speak  decisively.  If  the  children  of  Abraham  have  now 
a  divine  warrant  to  expect  the  future  possession  of  their  an- 
cient land;  whether  their  reliance  upon  the  promise  of  God 
involves  in  it  an  obligation  to  perpetuate  circumcision  among 
them,  or  whether  they  also  may  look  beyond  the  covenant  of 
circumcision  to  the  previous  grant  made  and  secured  by  co- 
venant to  their  uncircumcised  progenitor,  I  am  not  prepared 
to  say.  The  covenant  with  Abraham,  did  not  like  the  Mo- 
saic, provide  for  the  admission  of  Gentiles;  and  since  the 
death  of  Christ,  for  a  Gentile  to  receive  circumcision,  is  a 
tacit  acknowledgment,  that  the  congregation  ofthe  Lord  still 
exists,  that  its  sacrifices  still  are  necessary,  and  that  Christ 
has  died  in  vain.  But  it  is  not  so  easy  to  decide,  that  an  Is- 
raelite may  not  retain  circumcision  as  a  token  of  his  relation 
to  Abraham,  and  of  his  interest  in  the  blessings  which  ihe 
covenant  of  circumcision,  in  its  literal  import,  secured  to 
Abraham  and  to  his  seed  in  their  generations;  See  Acts  xxi. 
21,  25.;  but  this  appears  clear,  that  a  Jew,  who  felt  himself 
obliged  to  perpetuate  the  token  of  the  Abrahamic  covenant, 
in  hope  that  his  children  would  in  future,  possess  the  land  of 


34        The  New,  or  Christian  Covenant — The  Church. 

Canaan,  would  have  no  authority  to  substitute  baptism  for 
circumcision,  and  it  appears  equally  clear,  that  the  child  of  a 
Gentile  cannot  be  incorporated  by  baptism  among  the  seed 
of  Abraham. 


THE  NEW,  OR  CHRISTIAN  COVENANT THE  CHURCH. 

u  Now  indeed  was  formed,"  says  Dr.  Campbell,  "a  coramu- 
munity  of  the  disciples  of  Jesus,  which  was  called  his  church,  a 
word  that  signifies  no  more  than  society  or  assembly,  and  is 
sometimes  used  in  the  New  Testament  with  evident  analogy  to 
the  common  use,  to  signify  the  whole  community  of  Christians 
considered  as  one  body,  of  whom  Christ  is  the  head,  and  some- 
times only  a  particular  congregation  of  Christians."  Ecc. 
Hist.  Lee.  2.  He  insists,  that  more  than  these  two  appli- 
cations of  the  term  did  not  prevail  in  the  primitive  times, 
Lee.  6.  8.  10.,  and,  that  the  application  of  the  term  in  the 
singular  number  to  several  congregations,  or  to  rulers,  or  ju- 
dicatories, as  constituting  the  church  representative,  is  a  cor- 
ruption in  the  use  of  the  term. 

Whether  the  term  church,  in  its  Catholic  sense,  includes 
any  but  real  Christians,  is  an  important  question.  An  un- 
baptized  believer  appears  to  belong  to  the  church  which  Christ 
loved  and  gave  himself  for;  Eph.  v,  26.;  the  church  of  God, 
which  he  has  purchased  with  his  own  blood;  Acts  xx.  28.; 
the  church  of  the  first  born,  who  are  written  in  heaven;  Heb. 
xii.  23.;  the  church,  against  which  the  gates  of  hell  shall  not 
prevail;  Matt.  xvi.  18.;  the  church  which  is  the  body  of 
Christ,  1  Cor.  xii.  12.  27,  28.,  with  Eph.  iv.  11,  12.  15,  16.; 
— i.  22,  23.;— v.  23.  29,  30.;  and  Col.  i.  18.  24;— ii.  19.— 
but  that  a  baptized  unbeliever  is  a  member  of  this  church,  I 
have  never  been  able  to  discover.  It  was  predicted  of  the 
persons  whom  the  new  covenant  embraces,  that  they  should 
all  kn^wthe  Lord,  from  the  least  to  the  greatest,  and  although, 
'in  allusion  to  the  first  covenant,  they  are  styled  Israel  and 
Judah,  they  are  persons  who  have  the  law  in  their  hearts  and 
written  on  their  minds. 

Although  none  but  the  Infinitely  Wise  can  infallibly  deter- 
mine, who  belong  to  the  new  covenant,  yet,  such  a  descrip- 
tion of  their  character  is  given  in  the  inspired  word,  as  ena- 
bles them,  in  general,  to  know  each  other,  and  such  rules  of 


The  New,  or  Christian  Covenant — The  Church.       35 

intercourse  are  prescribed,  as  tend  to  their  spiritual  inter- 
course, and  the  spread  of  true  religion.  Among  these  regu- 
lations there  is  one  which  establishes  organized  worshipping 
congregations,  consisting  of  persons,  who  in  the  judgment  of 
charity,  are  regarded  by  each  other  as  belonging  to  the  new 
covenant.  Each  of  these  congregations  is  denominated  a 
church  in  the  second  scriptural  use  of  the  term. 

Baptism,  the  Lord's  supper,  the  church  Catholic,  and 
churches  congregational,  all  belong  to  the  new  covenant. 
Concerning  baptism,  Dr.  W.  says,  "  When  this  Christian  rite 
is  applied  to  believers,  it  is  a  seal  of  the  new  dispensation  to- 
wards them,"  p.  136,  137:  Concerning  the  supper,  p.  124, 
"  This  cup  of  wine  represents  my  blood,  by  which  the  new 
dispensation,  or  the  Christian  covenant  is  confirmed."  That 
the  church  catholic,  or  "  the  sanctified,"  belong  to  the  new 
covenant,  is  plain  fromHeb.  x.  14.  16.  That  congregational 
churches  belong  to  the  new  covenant,  or  the  new  order  of 
things  established  by  Christ  in  the  Gospel,  I  presume,  none  will 
dispute.  It  is  evident  that  neither  the  Abrahamic,  nor  the  Mo- 
saic covenant,  instituted  such  distinct  worshipping  assemblies. 

Should  any  one  urge,  that  there  is  a  third  sense  of  the  term 
church,  in  which  it  means  the  great  body  of  professors  of  the 
true  religion,  the  visible  church  catholic;  I  would  ask  where 
is  this  body,  and  what  constitutes  it  a  whole  ?  Has  it  a  visible 
head  ?  If  it  is  an  organized  whole,  what  are  its  general  or- 
gans ?  If  it  has  a  visible  union,  what  is  that  union  ?  If  it  has 
visible  dimensions,  what  are  their  boundaries  ?  Does  it  in- 
clude Catholics,  Universalists,  Socinians,  &,c.  ?  Does  it  in- 
clude, or  exclude,  Quakers  ?  If  it  requires  omniscience  to 
perceive  its  boundaries,  and  the  connexion  of  its  parts,  why 
is  it  called  a  visible  whole  ?  But  suppose  there  does  exist  a 
visible  church  catholic,  when  was  it  organized  ?  The  congre- 
gation of  the  Lord,  as  instituted  by  the  Mosaic  covenant,  was 
dissolved  when  its  charter  expired,  and  a  worshipping  con- 
gregation was  not  instituted  by  the  Abrahamic  covenant. 

The  most  plausible  argument  that  I  have  met  with  in  favour 
of  the  opinion,  that  there  exists  the  same  church  organization, 
in  the  present  as  in  the  former  dispensation,  may  be  thus  stated: 
The  writers  of  the  Neio  Testament  used  words  in  the  sense 
in  which  they  had  been  accustomed  to  read  them  in  the  scrip- 
tures of  the  Old  Testament.  The  word  gx*A»o-/a,  church,  was 
not  a  new  word,  since  it  is  the  very  word  by  which  the  LXX 


36        The  New,  or  Christian  Covenant — The  Church. 

have  rendered  the  Hebrew  /Hp  congregation.  That  must  have 
been  meant  and  understood  by  this  word  which  had  been  usu- 
ally meant  and  understood.  Therefore  the  New  Testament 
church  and  the  Old  Testament  congregation  are  the  same 
thing.  In  reply  to  this  argument,  I  would  suggest  the  follow- 
ing considerations  :  1 .  The  identity  of  organized  societies  is 
not  proved  by  the  similarity,  or  even  the  perfect  coincidence 
of  their  names.  The  names  Assembly,  Convention,  Asso- 
ciation, &c.  are  applied  to  bodies,  which  differ  from  each 
other.  It  is  always  unsafe  to  infer  from  the  mere  name  of 
a  society  the  principles  of  its  organization.  2.  There  are 
two  Hebrew  words  Snp  and  «TW  which  are  used  for  the 
congregation  of  Israel ;  but  f««^nff  is,  by  no  means,  the  uni- 
form rendering  of  either.  They  both  occur  in  Exodus  xii. 
6.  (the  very  chapter  in  which  the  congregation  first  appears,) 
where  the  LXX.  render  neither  of  them  ikkXvo-ix  ;  but  the 
former  is  rendered  by  ttAjjSoj,  and  the  latter  by  vv»xy»y\.  In 
Num.  xvi.  3.  both  are  rendered  a-wxyayn.  3.  Because  the 
Hebrew  term  for  congregation  is  sometimes  rendered  by  the 
LXX.  irXnSo?  or  crvvetyayv,  it  by  no  means  follows  that  the 
New  Testament  writers,  whenever  they  have  used  these  terms, 
meant  by  them  the  congregation  of  the  Lord.  As  the  <rvvx~ 
yay?)  synagogue  of  the  New  Testament,  differed  from  the 
o-wxyetyn  congregation  of  the  Septuagint,  so  the  eKtchno-tx 
church  of  the  one,  differed  from  the  ikk^tix  congregation  of 
the  other.  4.  The  Israelites  are  often  spoken  of  collectively 
in  the  New  Testament :  but,  (with  one  exception  which  shall 
be  noticed  hereafter,)  in  no  place  whatever  are  they  designated 
by  the  term  tKK^ncix.  The  house  of  Israel,  the  common- 
wealth of  Israel,  the  seed  of  Abraham,  &c.  they  were;  but 
would  we  know  that  they  were  the  church,  the  church  of  God, 
we  shall  search  the  sacred  volume  in  vain  for  the  information. 
The  exception  alluded  to  above  is  Acts  vii.  38.  "  This  is 
he  that  was  in  the  church  in  the  wilderness."  On  this  pas- 
sage Dr.  Doddridge  has  the  following  note  :  "  I  follow  Beza, 
Heinsius,  and  the  Prussian  translators,  in  rendering  ixkM*ix 
assembly,  as  our  translators  do,  Acts  xix.  ult.  because  1  am 
persuaded  it  refers  not  in  the  general  to  their  being  incorpo- 
rated into  one  church  in  the  appropriate  sense  of  that  word, 
but  their  being  assembled  round  the  mountain  on  the  solemn 
day  when  the  law  was  given.  Ex.  xix.  17.  et  seq."  Dr. 
Doddridge's  opinion  is  greatly  confirmed  by  the  manifest  re- 


The  New,  or  Christian  Covenant — The  Church.       37 

ference  in  these  words  of  Stephen  to  Deut.  xviii.  The  37th 
verse  is  a  quotation  from  the  15th  of  that  chapter  ;  and  the 
38th,  the  verse  in  question,  refers  to  the  same  event,  which  is 
alluded  to  in  the  16th  cf  that  chapter^  in  which  the  very  word 
tKxXYiTtec.  is  also  found  in  the  translation  of  the  LXX.,  but  in 
such  a  connexion  as  forbids  its  being  taken  in  the  appropriate 
sense.  Who  would  think  of  rendering  r»  tus^ec  tjjj  ixxXntrixg, 
(which  are  the  words  of  the  LXX.,  Deut.  xviii.  16.)  in  the 
day  of  the  church. 

The  use  of  the  term  in  the  New  Testament,  instead  of  fa- 
vouring the  opinion  for  which  the  preceding  argumentis  urged, 
discountenances  it.  If  I  mistake  not,  it  may  be  shown  that  in 
the  sense  in  which  this  term  was  appropriated,  to  an  organ- 
ized religious  body,  it  was  totally  incapable  of  being  applied 
to  the  nation  of  Israel. 

In  Matt,  xviii.  17.,  we  have  this  direction  of  the  Redeemer, 
M  And  if  he  neglect  to  hear  them,  tell  it  to  the  church:  but  if 
he  neglect  to  hear  the  church,  let  him  be  unto  thee  as  an  hea- 
then man,  and  a  publican."  Now  if  the  term  ikk^fi*  in 
its  scriptural  use,  could  possibly  have  meant  the  Jewish  peo- 
ple, as  an  organized  religious  body,  it  was  the  meaning  of 
Christ  here.  If  it  could  possibly  have  been  so  understood  by 
the  disciples,  they  must  have  understood  it  so  here.  As  yet, 
the  hand  writing  of  ordinances  was  not  nailed  to  the  cross; 
the  middle  wall  of  partition  was  not  broken  down,  and  the 
regularly  organized  New  Testament  churches  did  not  exist  to 
hear  complaints,  and  to  administer  censures.  The  Master  of 
the  house  was  present:  and  they  of  the  household  needed  not, 
and  possessed  not,  such  authority.  There  were  fit  materials 
for  gospel  churches,  but  they  were  not  yet  put  together.  Of 
what  then  did  the  Saviour  speak,  when  he  said,  "  tell  it  to  the 
church  ?"  Did  he  speak  by  way  of  anticipation  ?  It  is  natu- 
ral enough,  on  the  supposition  that  no  churches  then  existed, 
to  understand  the  master  of  the  bouse,  as  giving  directions  to 
his  household,  while  he  was  yet  with  them,  by  which  their 
conduct  should  be  regulated  after  he  had  left  them.  But  this 
interpretation  ceases  to  be  possible,  the  moment  we  suppose 
a  church  was  then  in  existence,  of  which  he  might  be  under- 
stood to  speak.  No  one,  who  means  to  be  understood,  ever 
uses,  without  explanation,  the  name  of  a  thing  that  is  now 
existing,  and  at  hand,  and  known  to  his  hearers,  if  he  intends 
a  thing  that  does  not  now  exist,  that  his  hearers  never  knew, 

D 


38  Arguing  from  one  Dispensation  to  another. 

and  that  never  did  exist.  What  follows  ?  Did  the  Lord  Jesus 
direct  his  disciples  to  lay  their  grievances  before  the 
Jews,  their  most  rancorous  enemies;  to  abide  by  the  de- 
cision, and  to  regulate  their  feelings  and  conduct  by  the  judg- 
ment of  persons  who  cast  the  disciples  out  of  the  synagogues, 
and.  nailed  their  Master  to  the  cross  ?  Impossible  ! — Yet,  all 
this  follows,  if  the  term  eKKXyrta  could  possibly  be  used  to 
signify  the  house  of  Israel. 

Having  thus,  my  dear  brother,  made  it  appear  as  I  con- 
ceive, that  the  Mosaic  covenant  is  disannulled,  and  the  con- 
gregation of  the  Lord  dissolved; — that  the  covenant  of  cir- 
cumcision in  its  literal  import  respected  the  literal  seed  of 
Abraham,  and  that  in  the  spiritual  seed  of  Abraham  none  but 
believers  are  included; — and  that  the  church  of  Christ  is 
founded  upon  neither  of  these  covenants,  but  belongs  with  the 
ordinances  of  Baptism  and  the  Supper,  to  a  new  covenant  dis- 
tinct from  both  of  the  former — I  shall  here  close  this  epistle. 
Yours  affectionately,  John. 


&XSTTXSR  IV. 

My  Dear  Brother — Tn  my  last  letter  I  gave  you  my  views 
of  the  Abrahamic,  the  Mosaic,  and  the  Christian  covenants: 
I  propose  in  the  present  to  inquire  into  the  conclusiveness  of 
that  reasoning  from  one  dispensation  to  another,  by  which, 
Infant  Baptism  is  inferred  from  Infant  Circumcision. 

AROUING  FROM  ONE  DISPENSATION  TO  ANOTHER. 

I  have  expressed  my  opinion,  that  the  use  of  inference 
ought  to  be  admitted,  even  with  respect  to  positive  institutes. 
It  should  be  remembered,  however,  that  inferences  differ  in 
their  degree  of  clearness,  and  directness,  and  that  those  which 
are  obscure  and  remote,  have  inferior  claims  to  our  conside- 
ration. Whether  that  kind  of  inference  which  consists  in 
arguing  from  one  dispensation  to  another,  is  admissible,  with 
respect  to  positive  institutes,  is  an  important  question. 


Arguing  from  one  Dispensation  to  another.  39 

To  illustrate  the  principle  laid  down,  that  different  kinds  of 
inference  are  admissible  in  different  degrees,  it  may  be  proper 
to  enumerate  a  few,  which  have  unequal  claims,  in  this  re- 
spect. 1.  There  are  inferences  purely  philological,  or  which 
are  used  merely  to  ascertain  the  meaning  of  words  and 
phrases.  These  are  to  be  admitted  freely  in  every  part  of 
the  scriptures.  No  man  in  his  senses,  one  might  presume, 
will  ever  deny  their  use.  It  is  by  this  kind  of  inference,  that 
we  determine  whether  the  word  iro^vopuh  in  tne  commission, 
means  go,  or  stay;  whether  ^x^tva  means  teach  or  disci- 
ple; and,  whether  fix^-riga  means  immerse  or  sprinkle;  and, 
whether  the  word  *v0g»7ro$,  1  Cor.  xi.  28.  means  ixmale,  or  a 
human  being  without  regard  to  sex.  A  command  is  not  the 
less  positive,  because  this  kind  of  inference  is  used  to  explain 
it.  2.  There  are  inferences  concerning  necessarily  implied 
duties.  From  the  command,  "  forsake  not  the  assembling  of 
yourselves  together,"  may  be  inferred  the  duty  of  appointing 
times  and  places  of  religious  meeting.  3.  There  are  infer- 
ences concerning  correlative  duties.  From  the  command 
given  to  ministers  to  baptize  may  be  inferred  the  duty  of  con- 
verts to  be  baptized.  4.  There  are  inferences  concerning 
analogous  duties.  We  may  infer  the  duty  of  obeying  instruc- 
tors or  masters,  from  the  command  honour  thy  father  and  thy 
mother. 

In  that  kind  of  inference,  which  consists  in  arguing  from 
one  dispensation  to  another,  there  is  considerable  variety  ac- 
cording to  the  nature  of  the  subjects  to  which  it  is  applied. 
1.  Moral  duties  under  one  dispensation  may  be  freely  infer- 
red from  moral  duties  under  another:  because  the  great  du- 
ties of  morality  are  independent  of  the  peculiarities  of  any  dis- 
pensation. Thus  the  Apostle  argues  from  the  precepts  of  the 
decalogue,  that  christians  are  under  obligations  to  love  their 
neighbours.  Rom.  xiii.  8.  10.  2.  Moral  duties  in  one  dis- 
pensation, may  be  argued  from  positive  institutes  of  another. 
Thus  the  Apostle  argues  the  duty  of  supporting  the  ministers 
of  the  Gospel,  from  the  precept  of  Moses, "  Thou  shalt  not  muz- 
zle the  ox  that  treadeth  out  the  corn."  1  Tim.  v.  17,  18.  1 
Cor.  ix.  1.  10.  In  like  manner,  moral  truths  may  be  argued 
from  positive  institutes,  as  in  the  epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  the 
spiritual  things  of  the  gospel  are  argued  from  the  typical 
things  of  the  law.  3.  Whether  a  positive  institute  of  one  dis- 
pensation may  in  any  case  be  inferred  from  a  positive  institute 


40  Arguing  from  one  Dispensation  to  another. 

of  another,  I  cannot  tell.  I  do  not  know,  that  there  is  in 
the  scripture,  any  example  of  this  kind  of  inference.  I  would 
much  rather  grant  to  an  opponent  the  privilege  of  using  it, 
than  claim  it  for  myself.  Mr.  Scott  says;  "  John's  baptism 
and  Christian  baptism  were  not  exactly  the  same:  and  infer- 
ences from  the  one  respecting  the  other,  are  inconclusive." 
Note  on  Matt.  iii.  5,*6. 

Whoever  ventures  to  argue  a  positive  institute  of  one  dis- 
pensation, from  a  positive  institute  of  another,  ought  at  least 
to  look  well  to  it,  that  he  has  a  clear  view  of  those  dispensa- 
tions. Dr.  W.'s  views  of  the  covenants,  (I  speak  with  defe- 
rence,) do  not  seem  to  me  to  be  clear.  He  says,  p.  35.  "  the 
covenant,  of  which  circumcision  was  appointed  to  be  the  seal, 
was  spiritual,  gracious,  and  immutable."  Among  other 
meanings,  which  he  gives  of  the  word  covenant,  he  says,  p. 
122.  that  it  means  an  economy :  and  he  gives  the  same  ex- 
planation, p.  124.  where  also,  he  uses  the  term  dispensation. 
In  p.  131.  he  says,  "no  reason  against  Infant  Baptism  can 
arise  from  the  difference  between  the  Christian  and  the  Abra- 
hamic  economy"  and  concerning  the  change,  from  one  dis- 
pensation to  the  other,  he  says,  "  this  change  is  admitted  to 
be  great  and  extensive."  Now  how  is  it,  that  a  covenant  i3 
an  economy,  and  yet,  the  Abrahamic  covenant  is  unchange- 
able, and  the  Abrahamic  economy  has  changed  greatly  and 
extensively;  yea,  so  greatly  and  extensively,  as  to  cease,  and 
give  place-  to  another  economy  ?  I  doubt  not,  but  Dr.  W. 
has  some  method  of  reconciling  this  apparent  inconsistency, 
but  he  could  scarcely  have  been  betrayed  into  such  apparent 
contradiction  in  his  language,  if  in  his  thoughts  there  had 
been  no  obscurity.  I  have  before  noticed  his  appearing  to 
have  given  up  a  main  argument,  respecting  the  application  of 
the  commission.  Is  it  not  remarkable  that  a  controvertist  of 
such  ability  should  even  seem  to  abandon  the  very  strongest 
positions  that  he  has  assumed  ? 

It  is,  I  think,  a  further  proof  of  darkness  in  Dr.  W.'s  view 
of  the  covenants,  that  a  reader  of  the  Lectures  finds  it  so  very 
difficult  to  perceive,  what  it  was  in  the  Abrahamic  covenant, 
which  being  established  by  that  covenant,  is  immutable,  and 
which,  in  the  midst  of  great  and  extensive  changes  has  con- 
tinued the  same  through  the  Christian  dispensation.  I  have 
bestowed  some  labour  in  order  to  di.-cover  what  that  thing  is, 
but  have  been  able  to  find  out  nothing  whatever,  but  the  very 


Arguing  from  one  Dispensation  to  another.  4 1 

thing  now  in  dispute;  viz.  that  the  natural  relation  between 
parents  and  children,  then  was,  and  now  is,  marked  by  a  re- 
ligious rite,  p.  31.     "  The  divine  economy,  though  circum- 
stantially different,  is  the  same  in  substance  now,  as  before 
the  coming  of  Christ,  the  same  most  evidently,  so  far  as  re- 
lates to  the  connexion  between  parents  and  children,  and  the 
high  interest  which  that  connexion  involves,"  p.  136.     Nei- 
ther the  relation  between  parents  and  children,  nor  the  moral 
obligations  growing  out  of  that  relation  originated  in  the  Abra- 
hamic  covenant.     The  connexion  between  parents  and  chil- 
dren in  the  rite  of  circumcision  did  originate  there,  and,  if 
that  connexion  between  them  is  perpetuated  in  the  rite  of 
baptism,  it  is  all,  so  far  as  I  can  see,  that  now  exists,  for 
which  we  are  indebted  to  that  covenant.     We  have,  there- 
fore, the  whole  immutability  of  the  Abrahamic  covenant  re- 
duced to  the  very  point  in  dispute.     Nay,  even  this  point  itself 
has  not  remained  without  change,  for  neither  is  the  relation 
that  is  marked,  the  same,  nor  the  religious  rite  by  which  it  is 
marked,  the  same,  nor  the  time  and  circumstances  of  applying 
the  mark,  the  same.     Where  then  is  the  immutable  covenant? 
And,  moreover,  why  is  it  called  spiritual?     To  mark  with 
an  external  mark,  a  connexion  founded  upon  a  natural  rela- 
tion, one  would  think,  ought  to  be  called  a  natural  covenant, 
rather  than  a  spiritual.    It  appears  a  like  solecism,  to  say  that 
children  by  nature  have  a  right  to  the  kingdom  of  grace :  com- 
pare p.  59  and  66.     The  new  covenant  recognises  no  privi- 
leges founded  on  natural  relations.     It  knows  no  man  after 
the  flesh. 

Whoever  ventures  to  argue  a  positive  institute  of  one  dis- 
pensation, from  a  positive  institute  of  another,  should  also  see 
to  it,  that  his  inference  be  fairly  drawn.  Because  the  rela- 
tion between  father  and  child  was  once  marked  by  a  religious 
rite,  Dr.  W.  infers,  that  it  ought  still  to  be  so,  and  that  be- 
cause this  relation  is  founded  in  nature,  the  obligation  to 
mark  it  by  a  religious  rite  must  continue  through  every  change 
of  dispensation.  But  Abraham's  remote  descendants,  as  well 
as  his  immediate  offspring,  had  their  relation  to  him  marked 
by  circumcision,  and  the  relation  of  an  ancestor,  to  grand- 
children, and  great  grand-children,  is  as  truly  founded  in  na- 
ture, as  his  relation  to  his  children.  This  argument,  there- 
fore, if  it  proves  any  thing,  will  prove  that  baptism  ought  to 
be  perpetuated  in  the  family  of  the  believer  to  the  remotest 

d  2 


42  Circumcision  and  Baptism. 

generations,  not  by  a  right  dependent  on  the  moral  character 
of  intermediate  parents,  but  by  virtue  of  their  natural  relation 
to  that  ancestor,  who  first  professed  Christ. 

CIRCUMCISION  AND  BAPTISM. 

When  the  principle  of  inferring  a  positive  institute  of  one 
dispensation  from  a  positive  institute  of  another  is  admitted, 
its  application  to  the  present  case  consists  in  inferring  Infant 
Baptism  from  Infant  Circumcision.  To  justify  this  inference, 
it  is  pleaded,  that  baptism  comes  in  the  place  of  circumcision. 
p.  118. 

When  it  is  said  that  baptism  comes  in  the  place  of  circum- 
cision, it  is  meant,  either  that  it  occupies  the  same  place  in 
the  same  covenant,  or  the  corresponding  place  in  a  similar 
covenant.  If  baptism  comes  in  the  place  of  circumcision  in 
the  former  sense,  it  is  an  exact  substitute  and  ought  to  be  ap- 
plied to  the  same  subjects:  if  in  the  latter  sense  it  is  not  an 
exact  substitute;  and,  whether  it  ought  to  be  applied  to  the 
same  subjects  or  not,  will  depend  upon  the  extent  of  agree- 
ment between  the  two  covenants,  if  inference  from  one  cove- 
nant to  the  other  in  such  a  case  is  admissible.  Though  it 
should  be  made  to  appear,  that  there  is  a  general  similarity 
between  the  Abrahamic  and  the  Christian  covenant;  yet,  a 
general  similarity  between  them  as  wholes,  by  no  means  im- 
plies a  perfect  agreement  between  particular  parts:  and  those 
parts  which  respect  the  relation  of  children  to  baptism  and 
circumcision  may  be  supposed  to  differ,  until  it  be  shown  to 
be  otherwise. 

If  baptism  is  an  exact  substitute  for  circumcision  consider- 
ed as  the  token  of  the  Abrahamic  covenant,  then  it  should  be 
administered  to  those  persons,  who  were  in  that  covenant 
required  to  be  circumcised,  namely,  the  literal  male  descend- 
ants of  Abraham,  at  the  age  of  eight  days,  in  all  their  gene- 
rations, together  with  all  their  servants  born  in  their  houses, 
or  bought  with  their  money.  If  baptism  is  an  exact  substi- 
tute for  circumcision,  considered  as  a  prerequisite  for  the 
admission  of  Gentiles  into  the  congregation  of  the  Lord,  then 
it  should  be  administered  to  all  the  children  and  servants  of 
every  proselyte,  and  the  congregation  of  the  Lord  should  be 
allowed  still  to  exist,  with  its  wall  of  partition,  its  worn  out 
covenant,  and  hand  writing  of  ordinances;  and  we  should 


Circumcision  and  Baptism.  43 

tremble  at  the  language  of  Paul;  "  behold,  I  Paul,  say  unto 
you,  that  if  ye  be  baptized,  Christ  shall  profit  you  nothing." 

That  baptism  does  not  come  in  the  room  of  circumcision, 
in  any  sense,  which  justifies  arguments  from  one  to  the  other 
to  ascertain  the  proper  subjects  of  either,  may  be  inferred 
from  the  discussions  at  Jerusalem,  recorded,  Acts  xv.  re- 
specting the  obligation  of  Gentiles  to  be  circumcised.  Dr. 
Woods  says,  p.  102.  u  The  unbelieving  Jews,  and  even  some, 
who  professed  to  believe,  were  ready  enough  on  ail  occasions, 
to  complain  of  innovation,  and  of  every  tiling  in  Christianity, 
which  implied  the  giving  up  of  what  belonged  to  the  Jewish 
religion.  How  earnestly  did  they  object  to  giving  up  cir- 
cumcision, although  baptism  was  introduced  as  a  mark  of 
discipleship."  How  readily  did  it  strike  the  mind  of  Dr.  W. 
that  the  substitution  of  baptism  for  circumcision  was  a  weighty 
argument  for  the  disuse  of  the  latter.  Had  he  lived  in  the 
time  of  the  Apostles  and  been  a  member  of  the  council  at 
Jerusalem,  I  am  constrained  to  believe,  that  this  would  have 
been  his  main  argument.  Why  did  not  the  Apostles  think  of 
this  argument  ?  I  can  assign  no  reason  for  it,  unless  it  be, 
that  they  did  not  think  on  this  subject  as  he  does. 

Dr.  VV.  does  not  contend  for  an  exact  substitution  of  bap- 
tism for  circumcision.  He  only  argues  from  one  dispensa- 
tion to  the  other,  and  maintains,  that  "  there  is  a  general 
agreement  between  these  rites  as  to  the  object  sought,  or  the 
end  to  be  answered,  how  different  soever  they  may  be  in 
other  respects."  This  substitution  is  that  of  correspondence. 
Baptism,  in  the  new  dispensation,  is  supposed  to  occupy  the 
place  corresponding  to  that,  which  circumcision  occupied  in 
the  old.  Now  until  it  be  shown  that  these  parts  of  the  two 
different  dispensations,  not  only  correspond,  but  also  exactly 
agree,  the  argument  that  deduces  infant  baptism  from  infant 
circumcision  will  be  inconclusive.  The  necessity  of  this 
exact  agreement,  in  order  to  justify  such  an  inference,  Dr. 
W.  seems  to  admit  when  he  says:  the  economies  are  "  the 
same,  so  far  as  relates  to  the  connexion  between  parents  and 
children."  That  there  is  not  a  perfect  agreement  between 
these  parts  of  the  two  different  dispensations  the  following 
consideration,  among  many  that  might  be  adduced,  sufficient- 
ly shows.  Baptism,  so  far  as  we  can  learn  from  the  Chris- 
tian dispensation,  was  a  personal  duty.     Circumcision  in  the 


44  Circumcision  and  Baptism. 

Abrahamic  dispensation,  was  a  parental  duty,  and  became  a 
personal  duty  only  by  an  exception  from  the  general  rule. 

To  illustrate  the  nature  of  that  substitution  for  which  he 
contends,  Dr.  W.  adduces  instances,  that  he  deems  similar: 
namely,  the  substitution  of  Christian  meeting  houses  for  Jew- 
ish synagogues;  of  the  Christian  ministry  for  the  Levitical 
priesthood,  &c.  p.  117,  118.  From  these  instances  I  will 
select  the  one  last  quoted,  and  show  from  it  the  inconclusive- 
ness  of  his  reasoning.  Between  the  Christian  ministry  and 
the  ancient  priesthood  there  is  a  general  agreement.  So 
great  is  this  similarity  in  their  office,  as  leaders  in  the  divine 
worship,  and  instructers  of  the  people,  that  the  very  name 
priest,  is  of  easy  application  to  a  Christian  minister.  Let  us 
now  argue  from  one  dispensation  to  the  other.  In  the  an- 
cient priesthood  there  was  a  connexion  between  the  parent 
and  his  children,  so  that  "  the  infant  children  of  the  priests, 
were  infant  members  of  the  priesthood."  p.  145.  Now  as 
the  Christian  ministry  comes  in  the  place  of  the  Levitical 
priesthood,  as  the  connexion  between  parents  and  children 
is  founded  on  a  natural  relation,  which  is  not  affected  by  the 
change  of  dispensation,  and  as  a  subsequent  charter  is  not  to 
be  interpreted  so  as  to  abridge  the  privileges  of  the  previous 
grant;  beyond  doubt,  the  infant  children  of  a  Christian  minis- 
ter are  infant  members  of  the  Christian  ministry.  Will  Dr. 
W.  admit  this  consequence  ?  Yet,  it  must  be  admitted,  or  his 
argument  for  infant  baptism  must  be  given  up. 

The  inconclusiveness  of  the  argument  may  be  illustrated  by 
an  instance  of  a  less  sacred  kind.  A  presidential  inaugura- 
tion is  a  substitute  for  a  kingly  coronation.  Suppose  the  son 
of  the  chief  magistrate  of  the  United  States,  should  publish 
the  following  address  to  his  fellow  citizens: — "  My  country- 
i%  men — The  relation  between  parents  and  children,  is  one  on 
"  which  depend  some  of  the  dearest  privileges  and  most  va- 
"  luable  blessings  that  we  enjoy.  It  is  a  relation  which  has 
%t  not  only  been  consecrated  by  the  warmest  affections  of  the 
"  human  heart;  but  has  been  recognised  in  the  laws  and  usages 
"  of  the  British  realm,  even  from  ancient  times.  Our  happy 
14  revolution  has,  indeed,  changed  our  circumstances  in  many 
"  respects,  but  it  has  not  diminished  the  venerableness  of  this 
"  relation,  nor  abridged  the  privileges  which  it  conveys.  Under 
J*  the  British  constitution,  when  the  king  ceases  to  reign,  the 


Circumcision  and  Baptism.  45 

"  ceremony  of  coronation  is  performed  upon  the  son.  Now, 
"  as  our  constitution  is  formed  upon  the  model  of  the  British 
11  constitution,  and  retains  much  of  its  spirit,  under  some  mo- 
"  difications,  as  to  outward  form,  and  as  a  presidential  inau- 
"  guration  comes  in  the  room  of  kingly  coronation,  I  must 
"  insist,  that  when  my  father's  term  of  service  shall  have  ex- 
"  pired,  you  will  allow  me  the  privilege  and  honour  of  the 
M  ceremony  of  inauguration  just  as  they  were  enjoyed  by  my 
"  father.  The  fact  that  the  king's  authority  ends  only  with 
ci  his  life,  and  that  the  president's  authority  ends  with  his  ap- 
"  pointed  number  of  years,  is  a  mere  accidental  circumstance, 
"  not  at  all  affecting  the  relation  between  parents  and  chil- 
"  dren."  If  he  should  here  close  his  address,  do  ycu  think,  he 
would  receive  the  honour,  or  the  ridicule  of  his  countrymen. 
Perhaps  some  might  say,  in  compassion  to  his  weakness,  "  If 
the  ceremony  will  do  him  any  good,  let  him  have  it;  we  know 
that  mere  ceremony  will  not  constitute  him  president:"  just 
as  some  Baptists  would  say,  "  If  the  sprinkling  of  children 
will  do  either  them  or  their  parents  any  good,  let  them  be 
sprinkled."  But,  if  the  claimant  of  presidential  inauguration, 
should  proceed  in  his  address  after  this  manner:  "  I  must 
"  moreover  insist,  my  countrymen,  that  you  will  never  repeat 
"  the  ceremony  of  inauguration,  so  as  to  invalidate  that 
"  which  shall  have  been  performed  upon  myself.  Such  a 
"  repetition  would  be  a  political  sacrilege,  as  execrable  as 
"  the  sin  of  anabaptism.  It  is  true,  our  constitution  speaks 
•'of  the  election  of  a  president  and  prescribes  the  mode,  but 
"  this  is  only  to  be  understood  of  those  cases  in  which  an 
"  election  is  necessary,  but  no  election  is  necessary  so  long 
"  as  I  shall  live,  having  upon  me  the  mark  of  official  inaugu- 
"  ration,  as  certain  a  seal  of  authority  as  the  wearing  of  the 
"  crown,  under  the  old  constitution."  If  he  should  thus  pro- 
ceed, think  you,  that  it  would  be  the  ridicule  or  the  indigna- 
tion of  his  countrymen  that  would  burst  upon  him  ?  Would 
they  not  say,  u  How  will  this  man  swear  to  maintain  the  con- 
stitution of  his  country,  when  his  very  claim  is  at  war  with 
the  plain  language  of  that  constitution  ?" — But  I  forbear  to 
make  the  application.  Though  our  brethren  when  they  per- 
form their  baptism,  which  they  consider  to  be  a  sacrament,  or 
oath  of  allegiance  to  the  new  covenant,  offer  violence  to  the 
very  terms  of  that  sacred  instrument :  yet,  it  is  not  ours  to 


46  Testimony  of  Ecclesiastical  History, 

vent  upon  them  either  ridicule  or  indignation.  It  befits  us, 
rather  to  confess  our  own  sins;  and,  to  pity  our  erring  bre- 
thren, love  them,  and  pray  for  them.  That  we  may  ever  have 
grace  to  do  so,  is  the  desire  of  your  brother, 

John. 


LETTER  V. 

Dear  Brother — There  are  two  more  topics  in  Dr.  Woods' 
Lectures,  on  which  \  am  inclined  to  offer  a  few  remarks. 
The  first  is  his  argument  from  Ecclesiastical  History ;  and 
the  second,  his  observations  on  the  mode  of  baptism. 

TESTIMONY  OF  ECCLESIASTICAL  HISTORY. 

In  reference  to  Ecclesiastical  History,  Dr.  W.  informs  us, 
that  his  intention  is,  to  give  citations  enough  to  show  the  na- 
ture of  the  argument,  referring  to  Wall,  &c.  for  further  in- 
formation— p.  106.  We  may  take. for  granted,  I  presume, 
that  in  the  selection  which  he  has  made,  he  has  summoned 
those  witnesses,  whose  testimony  he  supposed  was  the  most 
favourable  to  his  own  cause.  I  will  not  complain  of  this,  but 
shall  take  the  liberty  to  cross-examine  these  witnesses  for  a 
few  moments,  and  to  weigh  carefully  the  import  of  their  de- 
positions. 

The  first  citation  is  from  Justin  Martyr,  who  says,  "  There 
were  many  of  both  sexes,  who  were  made  disciples  to  Christ 
from  their  infancy."  "The  word  he  uses  is  tftxSvTivBvirecv ;  the 
very  word  used  by  Christ  in  the  commission.  The  persons 
referred  to,  Justin  says,  were  made  disciples  to  Christ,  tx 
irattai  from  their  early  childhood.  The  word  is  applied  to 
those  little  children  whom  Christ  took  in  his  arms  and  bless- 
ed."—p.  106. 

This  last  remark  must,  I  presume,  have  been  an  oversight. 
The  word  used  by  the  Evangelists  for  the  children,  which 
Jesus  took  up  in  his  arms  and  blessed,  is  netttio*'.  Mark  x. 
15.  Mat.  xix.  13,  14,  and  Luke  xviii.  16:  whereas  **<}*», 
the  word  used  by  Justin  is  the  genitive  plural  not  of  this 


Testimony  of  Ecclesiastical  History.  47 

word,  but  ofircttf.  Every  Greek  scholar  knows,  that  there  is 
a  difference  between  these  two  words,  the  former  being  a  di- 
minutive of  the  latter  ;  and  although  some  diminutives  are 
used  merely  to  denote  affection,  this  is  not  the  case  with 
rccihor.  "  Some  diminutives,"  says  Dr.  Campbell,  "  are  in- 
tended to  mark  a  distinction  only  in  age  or  in  size,  as 
$vyctT£io*,  x-ecihovtircct'frxpiov.  Tskvicv  appears,  on  the  contra- 
ry, more  expressive  of  affection  than  of  size."  Prelim.  Diss. 
12.  p.  1.  §  19.  He  makes  a  similar  remark  in  his  notes  on 
John  xiii.  33  ;  "  Diminutives  answer  a  double  purpose  ;  they 
express  either  the  littleness  or  fewness  in  respect  of  size  or 
number  of  that  to  which  they  .are  applied,  or  the  affection  of 
the  speaker.  In  Greek,  when  the  first  is  only,  or  chiefly  in- 
tended, the  word  answering  to  little  children  is  nxthx,  or 
irect'frecptcc,  not  Tg«w«."  Had  Justin  written  sk  vroiihav,  instead 
of  iK  w«/^w»,  still  the  argument  of  Dr.  W.  would  not  have 
been  conclusive,  that  Justin  meant  mere  infants,  for  even  the 
diminutive  ironho*  is  used  for  a  child  twelve  years  old  ;  Mark 
v.  39,  40,  42.  The  ancient  Greeks  and  Romans  used  their 
terms  which  correspond  to  our  infant  and  child  with  great 
latitude  of  meaning.  Hence  we  read  in  history  of  infants,  who 
contended  for  crowns  and  governed  empires.  Even  the 
Greek  word  wrtos  which  corresponds  precisely  to  the  Latin 
infans,  and  which,  Parkhurst  says,  signifies  "  Properly,  an 
infant,  a  child  not  yet  able  to  speak  plain"  is  used  by  the 
Apostle  Paul  for  a  minor,  or  one  under  age,  Gal.  iv.  1,  3; 
u  whom,"  says  Parkhurst,  "  our  law  likewise  calls  aninfant" 
That  the  word  Truig,  which  Justin  uses,,  does  not  of  itself  sig- 
nify an  infant,  may  be  inferred  from  what  Parkhurst  further 
observes  in  the  word  v^*^ :  "  It  is  used  by  Homer  as  an  ad- 
jective in  the  expressions  *u?r<o;  'vioi-,  **&(•$  7r*tg,  an  infant 
son:  vwrtos  ruts  occurs  also  in  the  prose  writers."  If  «•«/$ 
of  itself  denoted  an  infant  there  would  be  no  necessity  to  join 
the  word  tnzrtoq  with  it.  The  meaning  of  the  word  *■#*?, 
Parkhurst  thus  gives  :  u  1.  A  child,  whether  a  young  child, 
an  infant,  as  Mat.  ii.  16:  or  a  child  more  advanced,  a  boy  or 
girl,  Mat.  xxi.  15.  Luke  ii.  43,  viii.  31,  54.  Acts  xx.  12. 
Comp.  v.  9.  2.  A  child  in  respect  to  his  fither  without  re- 
gard to  age,  a  son,  Acts  iii.  13,  26.  iv.  27,  30.  Comp.  Luke 
i.  54.  3.  A  servant,  attendant,  Mat.  viii.  6V'  Let  it  be 
particularly  observed  that  *•*<?,  in  one  instance  denotes  the 
young  man  Eutychus,  who  fell  down  from  the  third  loft,  while 


48  Testimony  of  Ecclesiastical  History. 

Paul  was  preaching.  In  Robinson's  Lexicon,  published  at 
the  Seminary  where  Dr.  W.  teaches,  we  have  the  following 
given  for  the  sense  of  *■«*?:  "  A  child,  a  boy,  youth;  a  girl, 
maiden.  It  is  spoken  of  all  ages  from  infancy  up  to  man- 
hood. Compare  Mat.  ii.  16,  with  Acts  xx.  12.  Coll.  v.  9." 
The  instance  referred  to  by  both  these  lexicographers  in 
which  this  term  is  used  for  an  infant  is  Mat.  ii.  16.  On  this 
verse  Dr.  Campbell  has  a  remarkable  note:  "  The  historian 
seems  here  purposely  to  have  changed  the  term  vetihot 
which  is  used  for  child,  no  less  than  nine  times  in  this 
chapter ;  as  that  word  being  neuter,  and  admitting  only  the 
neuter  article,  was  not  fit  for  marking  the  distinction  of 
sexes;  and  to  have' adopted  a  term,  which  he  no  where 
else  employs  for  infants,  though  frequently  for  men-servants, 
and  once  for  youths  or  boys."  It  therefore  appears,  1. 
That  the  term  used  by  Justin  Martyr,  is  not,  as  Dr.  W. 
has  stated,*  the  same  which  the  evangelists  used  for  the 
children  that  Christ  took  up  in  his  arms  and  blessed.  All 
the  three  Evangelists  who  mention  these  children  use  Truth**; 
but  not  one  of  them  nctis.  2.  Had  Justin  used  the  diminu- 
tive Troti^iov,  even  that  might  mean,  on  the  authority  of  the 
same  evangelist,  Mark,  children  twelve  years  old.  3.  The 
word  which  Justin  uses  is  spoken  of  any  age  up  to  manhood, 
ind  does  not  of  itself  denote  infancy,  but  requires  an  adjec- 
tive to  be  prefixed  in  order  to  confine  it  to  this  sense.  So  far 
from  denoting  infancy  necessarily,  it  was  used  for  infants  only 
when  the  writer,  by  a  peculiar  circumstance,  was  limited  in 
his  choice  of  terms.  Let  these  things  be  well  considered,  and 
further,  that  Justin  was  under  no  necessity  to  employ  this 
term  to  denote  infants  or  persons  of  a  very  tender  age,  since 

*  The  word  zrudav,  quoted  in  Dr.  W's  book,  is  not  a  typo- 
graphical error  for  ztxi^u-jv,  as  one  is  led  by  this  statement  to 
suspect ;  but  is  really  the  word  used  by  Justin — The  London 
edition  of  his  Works,  A.  D.  1722,  page  22,  line  18.  The 
Latin  translation  given  in  this  edition,  is  "  qui  a  pueris  disci- 
plinam  Christi  sunt  assectati :"  which  literally  rendered  into 
English  is,  who,  from  boys  have  attended  upon  the  instruc- 
tion of  Christ.  The  translations  of  Dr.  W.  l  from  their  in- 
fancy,'— l  from  their  early  childhood ,'  cannot  be  justified. 
Would  he  translate  -u-xtiotg  infants,  where  it  first  occurs  in 
Justin,  "  TvttttKecs  tfitt%e9<rxv,  »ut  Trainees  Jifp^ffgfcr,"  p.  10  ? 


Testimony  of  Ecclesiastical  History.  49 

&£i$os,  or  tnzrtog,  or  even  w*<JVo*,  would  have  suited  this  pur- 
pose much  better.  I  say,  let  these  things  be  considered,  and 
then  let  any  candid  man  decide  whether  Justin  Martyr  gives 
testimony  in  favour  of  infant  baptism.  Persons  even  under 
the  age  of  twelve  have  been  baptized,  upon  a  satisfactory  pro- 
fession of  faith,  in  our  days  as  well  as  in  the  days  of  Justin. 
Such  paedobaptism  we  do  not  oppose. 

The  next  witness  is  Irenaais.  "  Christ,"  says  this  Father, 
"  came  to  save  all  persons  who  by  him  are  born  again  unto 
God,  infants,  and  little  ones,  and  children,  and  youth,  and 
elder  persons."  This  testimony  is  claimed  in  favour  of  Paedo- 
baptism, because  we  are  told  "  Being-  born  again,"  in  the 
writings  of  Irenaeus,  and  his  cotemporaries,  means  being  bap- 
tized. Suppose  that  they  did  use  the  phrase  sometimes  in 
this  sense,  does  it  follow  that  they  had  no  other  idea  of  being 
born  again  ?  If  so,  surely  they  were  miserable  theologians. 
Besides,  we  might  ask  this  venerable  witness,  whether  any 
persons  in  his  day,  after  they  had  been  baptized,  ever  re- 
lapsed into  their  former  habits  of  sin  ;  and  died  in  a  state  of 
apostasy  ;  and  if  so,  whether  their  baptism  saved  them  in 
such  a  case  ?  For  that  construction  of  this  testimony,  wrhich 
is  made  to  favour  infant  baptism,  requires  that  it  be  so  under- 
stood ;  for  Irenaeus  says  expressly,  that  Christ  came  to  save 
all  who  are  born  again,  &c.  But  if  by  "  being  born  again," 
he  meant  a  change  of  heart,  we  have  good  sense,  and  correct 
doctrine,  without  any  force  being  on  the  words  of  this  wit- 
ness. Again,  can  we  suppose  that  Irenaeu.;  excluded  all  per- 
sons from  salvation  who  had  not  been  baptized  with  water  ? 

Tertullian  is  brought  forward  as  the  next  evidence  in  the 
case.  Our  author  informs  us,  that  this  witness  entertained 
some  singular  notions  on  the  subject  of  baptism.  To  me, 
however,  it  appears  plain,  that  in  all  which  Tertullian  says  in 
reference  to  this  matter,  he  has  regard  to  minors  and  cate- 
chumens ;  and  that  there  is  not  the  most  distant  allusion  to 
mere  infants.  The  persons  of  whom  he  speaks  could  ask 
for  baptism  ;  for  the  advocates  of  their  baptism  urged  in  fa- 
vour of  the  practice  the  words  of  Christ,  Give  to  him  that 
asketh:  but  Tertullian  did  not  think  that  this  was  sufficient 
ground  for  baptizing  them.  "  Let  them  come  and  learn,  says 
he.  and  when  they  understand  Christianity,  let  them  profess 
themselves  Christians."  This  is  a  fine  Baptist  sentiment. 
Now  it  is  evident  from  all  this,  that  these  young  persons 

E 


50  Testimony  of  Ecclesiastical  History. 

had  not  been  baptized  in  infancy  ;  since  they  ask  for  baptism, 
and  both  Tertullian,  and  those  whom  he  opposes,  are  willing 
to  grant  it  to  them.  The  only  question  being,  whether  it 
shall  be  administered  now,  or  deferred  until  they  have  ac- 
quired a  knowledge  of  Christianity.  There  is  no  ground, 
then,  for  the  assertion,  "  That  infant  baptism  was  a  common 
thing  in  those  days." 

u  Origen,"  we  are  told,  "  is  very  explicit,' '  If  so,  it  is  a 
rare  thing.  He  has  been  called  "  an  everlasting  allegorizer." 
But  it  seems  he  could,  nevertheless,  be  explicit  for  once.  Our 
author  does  not  inform  us,  whether  he  quotes  from  the  genu- 
ine Greek  fragments  of  Origen,  or  from  Ruffians'  pretended 
translation  of  Origen's  works.  If  from  the  former,  we  refer 
him  back  to  Dr.  Wall,  who  has  shown  that  Origen  meant 
babes  in  Christ,  such  as  Peter  speaks  of,  who  "  desire  the 
sincere  milk  of  the  word,"  &lc.  If  he  quotes  from  Ruffinus, 
(and  we  may  take  it  for  granted  he  does  so,  seeing  he  gives 
it  to  us  in  Latin  ;  etiam  parvulis  dare  baptismum  ;)  then,  in- 
stead of  its  being  of  great  weight,  as  he  affirms,  it  is  in  fact  of 
no  weight  at  all ;  for  it  is  well  known  that  Ruffinus,  in  pre- 
tending to  translate  the  works  of  Origen,  interpolated  and 
altered  just  where  he  pleased. 

The  agitation  of  the  question  in  the  famous  Council,  in 
the  time  of  Cyprian,  "  whether  children  should  be  baptized 
on  the  second  day  after  their  birth,  or  whether  it  should  be 
deferred  till  the  eighth  day,"  shows  clearly,  that  the  good 
Bishops  found  no  directions  in  their  Bibles  on  the  subject. 
We  acknowledge  however,  that  infant  baptism,  (not  sprink- 
ling) began  to  be  considerably  current  in  Africa  about  this 
time,  but.  it  was  many  years  after  this,  before  it  was  patron- 
ized any  where  else.  Many  pernicious  errors  however,  had 
been  propagated  long  before  the  time  of  Cyprian. 

Augustine  who  was  born  near  the  middle  of  the  fourth 
century  says,  "  The  whole  Church  practice  infant  baptism. 
It  was  not  instituted  by  councils  but  was  always  in  use." 
He  adds  "  That  he  does  not  remember  to  have  heard  of  any 
persons,  whether  Catholic  or  Heretic,  who  maintained  that 
baptism  is  to  be  denied  to  infants."  This  testimony  might 
be  disposed  of  lawfully,  by  the  single  remark,  that  it  is  by 
far  too  late  to  be  of  any  importance.  I  have  some  curiosity 
however,  to  examine  the  paw  of  this  dead  lion.  Either 
then,  the  above  words  are  an  interpolation,  or  Augustine  con- 


Testimony  of  Ecclesiastical  History.  51 

tradicts  himself.  t;  The  whole  Church,"  he  says,  M  practice 
infant  baptism."  f*  Was  he  himself  then  baptized  in  infancy? 
Wan  Ambrose,  who  baptized  hirn,  baptized  in  infancy  ?  W  a3 
his  own  natural  son  baptized  in  infancy  ?  Was  his  Father 
Patncius  baptized  when  an  infant  ':''  See  Robinson's  History 
of  baptism,  Benedict's  ed.  p.  202  feaeq.  Li  The  parents  of  St, 
Austin."  says  Bishop  Taylor,  -  and  St.  Hierom  and  St.  Am- 
brose, though  they  were  Christians,  yet  did  not  baptize  their 
children  till  they  were  over  30  years  of  age :  and  St.  Chry- 
sostom,  who  was  instituted  and  brought  up  in  religion  by  the 
famous  and  beloved  Bishop  Melet.ius,  who  was  yet  not  bap- 
tized until  after  he  was  twenty  years  of  age  ;  and  Gregory  of 
Nazianzurn-,  though  he  was  the  son  of  a  Bishop,  yet  he  was 
not  christened  till  he  came  to  man's  age."  Again.  Augustine 
says,  that  he  M  never  heard  of  any  one  who  maintained  that 
baptism  is  to  be  denied  to  infants."  ••  Had  he,  who  pre- 
tended that  he  had  been  a  Manichean.  never  heard  that  they 
did  not  baptize  infants  ?  Had  all  other  heretics  escaped  his 
notice  ?  Had  he  forgot  himself  when  he  taxed  the  Pelagians 
with  denying  infant  baptism  ;  and  when  he  complained  in 
another  book  of  people  who  denied  it  V 

I  cannot  admit  the  testimony  which  is  said  to  come  from 
Pelagius.  If  the  half  that  has  been  reported  of  him  is  true, 
his  testimony,  even  if  we  had  it  directly  from  himself,  is  inad- 
missible. Besides  he,  like  Augustine,  is  entirely  too  modern. 
We  admit  that  in  their  day  infant  baptism  prevailed  ;  but  this 
i3  nothing  to  the  purpose  of  making  it  a  divine  institution. 

It  must  be  noticed  that  we  have  no  writings  of  Pelagius 
extant,  at  least  under  his  name,  only  some  passages  quoted 
by  his  adversaries,  by  which  we  can  judge  what  were  his  sen- 
timents about  infant  baptism.  Moreover  Augustine  affirms 
that  the  Pelagians  themselves  did  deny  baptism  to  some  in- 
fants, namely,  to  the  infants  of  believers,  and  for  this  reason 
because  they  were  holy,  and  that  Pelagius'  denial  of  this  was 
a  shift  to  which  he  resorted  in  his  argument.  This  fact  should 
lead  us  to  suspect  that  there  must  be  some  mistake  about  the 
testimony  of  Pelagius.  Dr.  Gill  in  a  Tract  written  in  reply 
to  the  Dissenting  Gentleman,  has  shown  that  Pelagius  did  not 
mean  what  Dr.W.  says  he  declared,  viz.  ■•  (hat  he  never  heard 
of  any  one,  even  the  most  impious  heretic,  who  asserted  thai 
infants  are  not  to  be  baptized."  His  words  are  "that  he 
never  heard,  no  not  any  impious  heretic,  that  would  say  con- 


52  Testimony  of  Ecclesiastical  History. 

cerning  infants,  what  he  proposed  or  mentioned."  The 
phrase  what  he  proposed  or  mentioned,  Dr.  G.  shows  does 
not  mean  that  infants  are  not  to  be  baptized. 

In  the  Tract  of  Dr.  Gill,  alluded  to  above,  various  other 
rites,  as  well  as  infant  baptism  are  shown  to  have  the  same 
authority  for  antiquity  and  Apostolic  origin.  Augustine 
affirms  infant  communion  to  be  an  Apostolic  tradition.  We 
have  an  instance  of  infant  communion  explicitly  stated  in  the 
time  of  Cyprian  :  and  there  is  no  explicit  mention  of  an  in- 
stance of  infant  baptism  so  ancient.  The  sign  of  the  cross 
in  baptism,  the  form  of  renouncing  the  Devil  and  all  his 
works,  exorcisms,  and  exsufflations,  trine  immersions,  the 
consecration  of  the  water,  anointing  with  oil,  the  giving  of 
milk  and  honey  were  maintained  by  Augustine  and  others  as 
rites  to  be  used  in  baptism  on  the  authority  of  ancient  and 
Apostolic  tradition.  Baptism  with  sponsors  was  in  use  in 
the  time  of  Tertullian,  for  he  dissuaded  from  the  baptism  of 
very  young  persons  on  the  ground  that  it  was  dangerous  to 
their  sponsors. 

"  Thus,"  says  Dr.  W.  p.  109,  "  it  appears  that  we  have 
evidence  as  abundant,  and  specific,  and  certain,  as  history  af- 
fords of  almost  any  fact,  that  infant  baptism  universally  pre- 
vailed from  the  days  of  the  Apostles  through  four  centuries." 
Whether  this  confident  and  triumphant  assertion  be  correct, 
let  the  facts  which  I  have  adduced  above  determine.  I  can- 
not but  regret  that  the  Dr.  should  have  suffered  himself  to 
pen  the  above  sentence.  I  regret  that  he  should  have  said 
any  thing  which  may  occasion  the  slightest  suspicion  of  his 
candour,  but  this  declaration,  is  made  in  direct  contradiction 
to  the  most  learned,  pious,  and  candid  writers  of  his  own 
sentiments. 

Dr.  Doddridge  has  examined  the  very  witnesses,  which 
Dr.  W.  has  brought  forward,  except  the  last  two  and  thus 
reports  their  testimony.  "  Justin  Martyr  speaks  of  some, 
'  who  had  been  made  disciples  from  their  infancy:'  but  this 
may  only  refer  to  their  having  been  early  instructed  in  the 
principles  of  the  Christian  religion." 

"  Irenams'"  it  is  argued,  u  mentions  infants  among  the  re- 
generate i.  e.  the  baptized,  as  the  word  generally  signifies  in 
his  writings.  Answer.  We  have  only  a  Latin  translation  of 
this  work,  and  some  critics  have  supposed  this  passage  spu- 
rious, or  allowing  it  to  be  genuine,  it  will  not  be  granted,  that 


Testimony  of  Ecclesiastical  History.  53 

to  be  regenerate  always  in  his  writings  signifies  baptized,  nor 
i3  it  certain,  how  far  the  fathers  extended  the  period  of  infan- 
cy; but  this  last  answer,  (he  does  not  say  so  of  the  former,) 
can  be  of  no  avail,  as  he  distinguishes  infants  from  parvuli 
andpweri." 

"  Tertullian  is  known  to  have  declared  against  infant  bap- 
tism, except  in  case  of  danger.  Gregory  Nazianzen  [A.  D. 
381,]  advises  to  defer  it  till  three  years  old.  Basil  blames 
his  auditors  for  delaying  it,  which  implies  that  there  were 
many  unbaptized  persons  among  them  :  but  these  might  not 
perhaps  have  been  the  children  of  Christian  parents." 

"It  is  allowed  there  are  many  passages  in  Origen,  that  ex-, 
pressly  refer  to  infant  baptism  :  but  they  are  chiefly  to  be 
found  in  those  translations  of  his  Greek  works,  which  were 
done  by  Rujjinus  and  Jerome,  who  made  some  very  bold  al- 
terations according  to  their  own  judgment  and  taste :  but 
this  is  not  applicable  to  all  the  passages  brought  from  him." 
[Is  it  not  applicable  to  those  which  are  at  all  explicit?] 

"  Cyprian  is  allowed  by  all  to  speak  expressly  of  infant 
baptism,  as  generally  used  in  the  church,  but  it  is  justly  an- 
swered, that  he  speaks  as  expressly  of  infant  communion  in 
the  eucharist :  and  consequently  that  the  divine  original  of 
the  latter  may  as  well  be  argued  from  him  as  that  of  the  for- 
mer;  yet  almost  all  paedobaptists  allow  that  to  be  an  inno- 
vation." 

"  It  is  indeed  surprising  that  nothing  more  express  is  to  be 
met  with  in  antiquity  upon  this  subject ;  but  it  is  here  to  be 
remembered,  that  when  infant  baptism  is  first  apparently 
mentioned,  we  read  of  no  remonstrance  made  against  it  as 
an  innovation ;  and  that  as  we   have  no  instance  of  any 

PERSONS     EXPRESSLY     ASSERTED     TO  HAVE     BEEN  BAPTIZED  IN 

TnEiR  infancy,  so  neither  of  any  children  of  christian  pa- 
rents baptized  in  years  of  discretion  ;  for  it  is  certain  Con- 
stantine's  father  did  not  profess  himself  a  Christian,  till  long 
after  he  was  born."  Dr.  Doddridge  says:  "  It  is  indeed 
surprising  that  nothing  more  express  is  to  be  met  with  in 
antiquity  upon  this  subject."  Dr.  W.  says  :  u  We  have  evi- 
dence as  abundant,  and  specific,  and  certain,  as  history  affords 
of  almost  any  fact,  that  infant  baptism  universally  prevailed 
from  the  days  of  the  Apostles  through  four  centuries." 

To  these  extracts  from  Dr.   Doddridge  mav  be  added  the 
E  2 


54       i  Testimony  of  Ecclesiastical  History. 

following  from  other  Paedobaptist  writers  out  of  a  number 
quoted  by  Mr.  Booth. 

Salmasius  and  Suicerus :  "  In  the  two  first  centuries  no 
one  was  baptized,  except,  being  instructed  in  the  faith,  and 
acquainted  with  the  doctrine  of  Christ,  he  was  able  to  pro- 
fess himselfa  believer." 

Curcellaius  :  "  The  baptism  of  infants,  in  the  two  first 
centuries  after  Christ,  was  altogether  unknown  ;  but  in  the 
third  and  fourth  was  allowed  by  some  few.  In  the  fifth  and 
following  ages  it  was  generally  received." 

Episcopius,  denies  that  any  tradition  can  be  produced  for 
Paedobaptism,  till  a  little  before  the  Milevitan  Council,  A.  D. 
418 ;  and  maintains  that  it  was  not  practised  in  Asia  till  near 
the  time  of  that  Council.  Mr.  Brandt  speaks  to  the  same 
effect. 

Our  author  speaks,  p.  114,  of  the  zeal  with  which  our 
writers  have  laboured  to  show,  that  infant  baptism  was  not 
the  universal  practice  of  the  early  Christian  Churches  ;  and 
adds,  "  If  they  could  produce  one  plain  declaration,  or  even 
a  suggestion,  or  a  hint,  from  Origen,  from  Augustine,  or  from 
Pelagius,  showing  that  infant  baptism  was  not  practised  by 
the  first  Christian  Churches,  and  that  no  order  or  tradition  in 
favour  of  it  was  ever  received  from  the  Apostles,  would  they 
not  consider  this  an  unquestionable  proof  against  infant  bap- 
tism ?"  It  would  seem  from  this,  my  brother,  that  we  are 
much  put  to  it  indeed  for  arguments  in  support  of  our  cause, 
if  a  suggestion  from  such  a  man  as  Pelagius,  would  be  con- 
sidered as  an  unquestionable  proof.  As  for  the  declarations 
&c.  of  the  above  named  individuals,  we  are  little  solicitous, 
for  reasons  already  given,  whether  they  -  be  for  us  or  against 
us.  It  may  be  worth  bearing  in  mind  however,  that  we  have 
proved  that  one  of  them,  viz.  Augustine,  a  child  of  christian 
parents,  was  not  baptized,  till  he  was  able  to  act  for  himself. 
This  is  worth  a  thousand  "hints,  or  suggestions"  from  him 
or  any  other  person  of  his  time.  And  we  have  seen  he 
was  by  no  means  singular  in  this  respect,  as  the  list  of  honor- 
able names,  which  I  have  given  from  Bishop  Taylor  plainly 
shows.  How  could  Dr.  W.  then  affirm,  that  we  have  suffi- 
cient evidence  to  conclude  that  infant  baptism  was  the 
uniform  practice?  With  respect  to  the  zeal  which  our 
writers  have  shewn,  to  discover  any  thing  in  the  history  of 
the  Church  against  infant  baptism,   I  would  observe,  if  they 


Testimony  of  Ecclesiastical  History.  55 

have  done  so,  it  was  altogether  needless ;  for  it  should  be 
enough  for  us,  that  we  have  neither  precept  nor  example  for 
it  in  the  New  Testament ;  no,  nor  yet  any  thing  by  which  it 
may  be  fairly  inferred.     But  if  our  Paedobaptist  brethren,  in 
the  entire  absence  of  any  proof  from  scripture,  will  urge  pre- 
tended arguments  from  the  practice  of  the  early  christians, 
the  Fathers  &c,  I  trust  we  shall  always  have  sufficient  zeal 
to  detect  any  misrepresentations  which  may    be  made,  and 
this  is  all  about  which  we  have  any  cause  to  be    concerned, 
for  I  have  seen  enough   to  convince  me,   that  the  writings  of 
the  Fathers,  as  they  are  called,  of  the  first  centuries  will,  on 
a  candid  examination,  afford  as  little  support  to  the  cause  of 
infant   baptism  as  the  New  Testament  itself.     It  may  be  re- 
garded as  proof  of  this   that   while  the  advocates  of  infant 
baptism  resort  for  testimony  to  the  interpolated  translation  of 
Origen's  works,  Dr.  Gill  found  it  easy  to  produce  testimony 
from  the  Greek  of  Origen  in  favour  of  adult  baptism   to  the 
exclusion  of  infant  baptism,  and  manifestly  against  the  latter. 
See  his  Tract  called  Anti  Pcedobaptism,  or   infant   baptism 
an  innovation. 

Justin  Martyr,  who  is  the  first  of  Dr.  W's  witnesses,  has 
given  testimony,  (p.  88 — 96  of  his  works,)  as  satisfactory  as 
can  be  demanded  in  proof  of  a  negative,  that  infant  baptism 
was  not  practised  in  his  days.  It  is  also  a  fact  worthy  to  be 
remembered  that  so  late  as  about  the  year  600,  Augustine,  the 
monk,  who  had  been  sent  as  a  Missionary  to  the  British  Isles, 
desirous  to  bring  the  British  Churches  to  conform  to  the 
practices  of  the  Church  of  Rome,  proposed  among  other 
things  necessary  to  accomplish  his  object,  that  they  should 
baptize  their  children  ;  but  they  would  not  consent.  See 
Ii-imcy's  History  of  the  English  Baptists,  or  Morgan's  pre- 
face to  his  Welch  Concordance. 

In  dismissing  the  witnesses  which  Dr.  W.  has  brought 
forward  it  strikes  my  mind  to  ask  whether  they  have  often 
been  called  upon  before  for  testimony  in  this  case.  Upon 
inquiring  I  find,  these  writers  out  of  all  the  ancient  fathers, 
and  precisely  these  passages  of  their  writings,  have  been  re- 
lied upon  by  Paedobaptist  writers  from  the  time  of  Dr.  Wall 
down  to  the  present  time  :  and  although  Dr.  Wall's  mistakes 
respecting  the  interpretation,  and  application  of  this  meagre 
testimony  have  been  pointed  out  again  and  again,  yet,  re- 
gardless of  all  this,  Dr.  Wall's  statements  have  been  repeated 


56       On  Matt.  xix.  13,  14— -Suffer  Little  Children,  $c. 

and  repeated,  sometimes  with  reference  to  him,  and  some- 
times without  any  such  acknowledgment,  and  the  shout  of 
triumph  is  heard  on  every  side,  that  there  is  clear  and  unan- 
swerable testimony  from  ecclesiastical  history,  that  infant 
baptism  was  universally  practised  in  the  earliest  ages  of  Chris- 
tianity ! 

What  I  may  have  to  say  on  the  mode  of  baptism,  I  reserve 
for  another  communication.  Meanwhile  I  am  your  affec- 
tionate brother, 

David. 


&ETTEH  VI. 

My  Dear  Brother — In  the  course  of  argument  which  I 
have  pursued,  I  have  attempted  to  show,  that  believer's  baptism 
ought  to  be  practised,  even  if  the  obligation  of  parents  to 
have  their  children  baptized  could  be  made  out  from  inference 
and  tradition.  I  have  also  examined  whether  infant  baptism 
may  be  made  out  by  inference  from  the  commission  or  from 
the  covenant  of  circumcision.  You  have  shown  that  it  can- 
not be  inferred  from  household  baptism  or  learned  from  tra- 
dition. But  may  it  be  inferred  from  any  instructions  of 
Christ  to  his  Apostles,  previous  to  the  final  commission  he 
gave  them,  or  from  any  declarations  in  the  writings  of  the 
Apostles?  To  one  text  under  each  of  these  heads  Dr,  W. 
refers;  us  namely  Matt.  xix.  13,  14.  1  Cor.  vii.  14  :  these 
texts  I  shall  now  proceed  to  consider. 

ON    MATT.  XIX.   13,   14 — SUFFER    LITTLE    CHILDREN,  fcc 

Dr.  W.  seems  to  have  written  on  this  text  with  much 
candour.  I  have  admired  how  equally  poised  the  scales 
appear  to  be  after  he  has  thrown  into  them  the  authorities 
and  arguments  on  both  sides ;  and  have  concluded,  that  there 
is  good  reason  to  say  with  Bishop  Taylor,  whom  you  quote, 
that  to  rely  upon  this  text  for  proof  of  infant  baptism  ■"  proves 
nothing  so  much  as  the  want  of  better  argument," 


On  Matt.  xix.  13, 14 — Suffer  Little  Children,  $c.       57 

Let  the  following  things  be  taken  into  consideration  re- 
specting this  text. 

The  phrase  rotevrov  -srxthor,  in  the  preceding  chapter  ac- 
cording to  Dr.  Ws.  own  explanation,  p.  64,  means  "  a  per- 
son of  a  child-like  disposition :"  and  if  rotovrut  [zrcttita*] 
in  this  place  means  the  same,  (excepting  the  difference  in 
number  and  case)  then  it  is  conceded  that  the  whole  argu- 
ment/or infant  baptism  as  founded  upon  this  text  falls  to  the 
ground.  That  it  does  mean  the  same  we  have  the  judgment 
of  a  very  large  number  even  of  Paedobaptist  writers.  Dr. 
W.  says,  p.  72  «*  the  most  respectable  authors  are  divided." 
He  mentions  Rosenmuller  and  Kuinoel  as  authorities  against 
himself:  other  names  might  easily  be  added.  Dr.  Doddridge 
considers  the  word  toiovtm  as  ambiguous,  and  declines  to  con- 
fine the  sense  by  a  translation,  though  he  gives  the  following 
paraphrase  ;  "  For  of  such  is  the  kingdom  of  God,  persons 
of  such  a  character  are  the  true  subjects  of  my  kingdom  and 
heirs  of  eternal  glory,"  He  says,  Lectures,  Prop.  144,  it 
"  may  signify  not  those  that  are  infants  in  age,  but  persons 
who  in  the  temper  and  disposition  of  their  minds  resemble 
the  simplicity  and  innocence  of  children,  which  the  connexion 
seems  to  favour.-"  Wakefield  whose  criticisms  are  valuable 
when  his  peculiar  tenets  are  not  concerned,  actually  trans- 
lates thus  ;  «*  Suffer  these  little  children  to  come  unto  me, 
and  forbid  them  not :  for  of  those]  who  resembles  them,  is 
the  kingdom  of  heaven."  Dr.  Macknight  explains  it  thus  ; 
"The  church  of  God  on  earth  and  the  kingdom  in  heaven, 
is  composed  of  persons  who  resemble  little  children  in  their 
dispositions,"  Harmony,  §104. 

If  it  could  be  determined,  that  the  phrase  does  not  mean 
the  same  in  both  chapters,  we  have  still  to  pursue  a  long  an<l 
uncertain  course  of  reasoning  before  we  can  arrive  at  the 
conclusion,  that  the  infant  children  of  believing  parents  ought 
to  be  baptized.  Let  us  suppose  the  word  such  to  be  changed 
to  another  which  shall  refer,  with  certainty,  to  the  identical 
children  that  were  then  in  the  Saviour's  presence,  and  let  us 
read  the  passage  according  to  W's  method  of  translating  it, 
thus:  "  Suffer  little  children,  and  forbid  them  not  to  come 
unto  me,  for  theirs  is  the  kingdom  of  heaven,"  would  it  strike 
any  plain  and  honest  man,  who  should  read  it,  that  it  meant 
the  infant  children  of  believing  parents  ought  to  be  baptized? 
Would  he  not  ask,  if  the  disciples  were  in  the  habit  of  bap- 


58      On  Matt.  xix.  13,  14— Suffer  Little  Children,  $c. 

tizing  children  why  did  they  reject  these  ?  If  Jesus  designed 
to  teach  that  children  ought  to  be  baptized,  why  did  he  not 
teach  it  by  a  clearer  precept  ?  And  why  did  he  not  set  the 
example  in  the  present  case  ?  If  the  phrase,  "Theirs  is  the 
kingdom  of  heaven,"  means  they  have  a  right  to  church  mem- 
bership in  the  visible  church,  why  were  they  sent  away  without 
being  admitted  ?  If  it  should  be  said  they  had  been  admitted 
at  the  time  of  their  circumcision,  then,  what  need  was  there 
that  Jesus  should  tell  his  disciples,  that  these  children  belong 
to  the  commonwealth  of  Israel?  and  why  should  he  use  a 
phrase  to  express  this  truth,  which  at  other  times,  from  his 
lips,  had  a  meaning  so  very  different?  See  Matt.  v.  3,  10. 
If  it  be  said,  that  the  phrase  "  theirs  is  the  kingdom  of  hea- 
ven" means  that  they  have  a  right  to  church  ordinances,  then 
why  are  they  not  admitted  to  the  supper  as  well  as  to  bap- 
tism? Dr.  W.  quotes  with  an  expression  of  pleasure  p.  74, 
from  Knapp's  Theology  the  following  remark  concerning 
this  very  text :  "  But  if  children  can  and  should  have  a  share 
in  the  Christian  church,  and  in  all  Christian  privileges  it  can- 
not be  improper  to  introduce  them  into  the  Christian  church 
by  this  solemn  rite  of  initiation."  Have  children  a  share  in 
all  Christian  privileges  while  the  communion-of  the  supper  is 
denied  them  ?  If  the  phrase  means,  that  they  have  a  right  to 
the  spiritual  and  eternal  blessings  of  the  kingdom,  and  of 
consequence  are  not  to  be  denied  inferior  privileges,  whether 
is  this  rite  conditional  or  unconditional  ?  If  they  shall  obtain 
the  spiritual  and  eternal  blessings  only  on  the  condition, 
either  that  they  die  in  infancy,  or  that  they  repent  and  believe 
after  they  shall  have  arrived  at  sufficient  age,  why  do  we  in- 
fer that  they  have  a  right  to  the  inferior  privilege  without  ei- 
ther of  these  conditions,  but  on  a  condition  of  a  very  differ- 
ent nature,  namely,  that  one  of  their  parents  is  a  believer? 
To  say  that  these  blessings  belong  to  children  unconditionally, 
involves  the  doctrine  of  universal  salvation. 

But  to  return  to  the  meaning  of  the  word  rotovTw,  Dr. 
Woods  having  so  accurately  baianced  the  authorities  and  ar- 
guments determines  at  length  in  favour  of  that  sense,  which 
he  supposes  to  be  on  the  side  of  infant  baptism.  He  ad- 
duces instances  of  its  use,  and  finds  but  one,  Matt,  xviii.  5,  in 
which  it  is  supposed  to  have  the  other  sense.  Now  I  ask 
whether  it  is  the  part  of  true  criticism  to  look  at  the  number 
of  the  instances  or  at  their  similarity  ?  Of  all  the  instances  re- 


On  Matt.  xix.  IS,  U—Suffer  Little  Children,  $c.      59 

ferred  to  by  the  Dr.  there  is  not  one  that  can  be  called  simi- 
lar except  that  in  the  18th  of  Matthew,  and  that  is  similar  to 
a  remarkable  extent.      In  both  cases  a  child  or  children  were 
present.     In  both  cases  the  Saviour  taught  the  disciples  s'hould 
resemble  little  children,  and  that  none  but  those  who  resemble 
little  children   can    enter  into   the  kingdom  of  heaven.     In 
both  cases  toiovto*  is  found  in  connexion  with  the  same  noun; 
for    zsciihiu*   is  the  noun   understood  after  rotovrai  in  Matt. 
xix.   14.     Now  the  idea  of  resemblance  in  Matt,  xviii.  5,  is 
conveyed  either  by  the  adjective  toivtov  or   by  the  use  of  the 
noun  ^os<3<e»,  in  connexion  with  a  discourse  in  which  a  child 
is  made  an  emblem  of  the  moral  qualities  necessary  in  order 
to  admission  into  the  kingdom  of  heaven.     In  either  way  the 
phrase  toivrov  ircuhoi  means  a  person  of  a  child-like  disposi- 
tion, and  the  same  phrase  used  by  the  same  speaker,  and  re- 
corded by  the  same  writer  in  circumstances  so  similar  and  in 
connexion  with  discourse  so  similar,  ought  to  be  interpreted 
the  same  way.     There  is  a  dissimilarity  which  the  Dr.  noti- 
ces.    In  chap,  xviii.  the  words  "  except  ye  be  converted  and 
become  as  little  children,"  come  in  the  discourse  before  the 
words  "  whoso  shall  receive  one  such  little  child  in  my  name, 
&c,"  whereas  in  the  other  discourse  see  Mark  x.  14,  15. 
Luke  xviii.  16,   17.  the  words,  "whoso  shall  not  receive  the 
kingdom  of  heaven    as  a   little    child  shall  in  no  wise  enter 
therein,"  come  after  the  words  "  suffer  little  children  to  come 
unto  me  &c,"  but  how  long  after  do  they  come  ?  They  are 
in  the  very  next  verse,  and  are  as  though  they  had  been  ut- 
tered by  the  very  same  breath,  for  they  precede   the  act  of 
laying  on  hands.     Moreover  they  were  uttered  with  a  mani- 
fest design  to  illustrate  and  enforce  the  preceding  sentence. 
Would  they  have  affected  the  phrase  rotevre/f  zrctthwv  different- 
ly, if  they  had  stood   in  the   verse  preceding  ?     If  the  mere 
circumstance   of  being   uttered   before  hand    is  to  have  so 
much  effect  rather  than  the  closeness  of  the  connexion,  let  itbe 
recollected,  that  the  whole  of  the  discourse  recorded  in  Matt, 
xviii.  preceded  that  in  Matt.  xix.  and  might  have  served  to  de- 
termine its  meaning,  even    if  all  the  evangelists  had  omitted 
the  explanatory   verse,  as  Matthew  has  done.     On  this  cir- 
cumstance, namely,  that  the  explanatory  verse  is  introduced 
M  after  he  had  shown  his  affection  for  the  little  children,  who 
were  brought  to  him,  and  had  declared  that  the  privileges  of 
his  kingdom    belonged  to  them,"   Dr.  W.   relies  for  the  re- 


60       On  Matt  xix.  13,  14— Suffer  Little  Children,  S$c. 

moval  of  "  the  last  and  the  greatest  difficulty."  p.  68,69. 
By  this  grain  at  last  the  scale  is  turned,  which  had  been,  with 
so  much  candour,  so  equally  poised  ! 

But,  after  all,  does  the  meaning  even  of  the  discourse  in  the 
18th  chapter  depend  either  upon  the  meaning  of  the  single 
word  Toivrog  or  upon  the  circumstance  that  tx^ioi  is  used  in 
a  connexion,  whether  before  or  after,  in  such  a  manner  as  to 
intimate  that  it  must  be  taken  figuratively  in.  the  particular 
phrase  to/ «Tey  ar«,/5Vey?  Suppose  none  of  the  evangelists  had 
given  an  account  of  this  discourse  but  Luke,  what  would 
have  been  the  meaning  of  his  statement,  chap.  ix.  48,  "  And 
Jesus  perceiving  the  thought  of  their  heart,  took  a  child,  and 
set  him  by  him,  and  said,  whosoever  shall  receive  this  child 
in  my  name  receiveth  me,  and  whosoever  shall  receive  me, 
receiveth  him  that  sent  me,  for  he  that  is  least  among  you 
nil,  the  same  shall  be  great."  Here  the  word  toiovtos  is  not 
used,  nor  is  the  word  nuitioi  used  by  the  Redeemer,  so  far 
as  this  evangelist  records  the  discourse,  except  in  the  single 
phrase  rovro  to  irxiht*  this  child;  but  Luke  has  recorded  the 
same  discourse  that  is  found  in  the  18th  of  Matthew,  and  his 
account  of  it,  though  more  brief,  is  certainly  capable  of  be- 
ing understood.  To  me  it  appears  that  the  meaning  is  to  be 
ascertained  rather  by  considering  the  whole  transaction  as 
symbolical,  than  by  assigning  a  peculiar  sense  to  any  single 
word.  Notwithstanding  all  the  instructions  and  rebukes  they 
received,  the  Apostles  retained  their  expectation  of  a  tempo- 
ral kingdom,  and  of  temporal  honours,  until  they  saw  their 
Master  nailed  to  the  cross.  To  be  greatest  in  that  kingdom, 
to  sit  on  the  right  hand  and  on  the  left,  was  the  object  of 
their  carnal  ambition.  What  then  did  the  action  mean, 
when  he  took  a  child  and  set  him  by  him,  at  the  very  moment 
when  they  were  contending  for  the  honour  of  being  nearest 
to  his  person  ?  It  was  as  if  he  had  said,  "  this  child  shall  be 
my  prime  minister."  When  he  added,  "  whosoever  shall  re- 
ceive this  child  in  my  name  receiveth  me,"  it  was  as  if  he 
had  said  "this  child  shall  be  my  representative,  my  ambas- 
sador." What  action  could  he  have  performed,  what  words 
could  he  have  uttered,  better  calculated  to  check  the  ambi- 
tion of  his  disciples  ? 

The  preceding  method  of  interpretation  appears  to  me 
equally  applicable  to  the  discourse  recorded  in  Matt.  xix. 
The  disciples  were   slow  of  heart  to  learn   and  had  profited 


On  Matt.  xix.  IS,  14 — Suffer  Little  Children.  Sec, 

little  by  their  former  lesson.  Either  the  phrase,  to  became 
<is  a  little  child.  Matt,  xvhi.  3,  had  been  understood  by  them 
carnally,  as  Nicodemas  had  understood  the  phrase,  to  be  bom 
again ;  or  tbey  had  forgotten  its  spiritual  import.  Certain  it 
15  that  tbey  were  again,  as  Dr.  W.  observes,  p.  €9  '"in  special 
need  of  the  instruction  then  given  them."  In  eastern  courts, 
as  for  example  that  of  Ahazuerus,  the  Persian  monarch,  the 
sovereign  was  far  removed  from  the  people,  and  it  was  in 
some  degree  within  the  power  of  his  courtiers  to  guard  the 
way  of  approach  to  him.  This  power  the  Apostles  never 
attempted  to  exercise  but  in  the  case  of  the  httie  children 
brought  to  him  on  this  occasion.  But,  an  application  for 
blessings  Jesus  never  rejected  himself,  and  the  power  to  re- 
ject he  never  delegated  to  his  Apostles.  This  usurpation  on 
their  part  greatly  displeased  him.  Mark  x.  14.  What  tbeir 
motives  were  we  know  not :  whether  they  designed  only  that 
their  Master  should  not  be  troubled,  or  whether,  in  tbeir  sim- 
plicity, they  had  become  jealous  of  these  young  cane; 
for  his  favour,  we  need  not  determine.  Possibly  they  had 
feared,  when  they  saw  a  young  child  set  in  the  place  that 
they  had  so  much  coveted,  lest  the  King  Messiah,  who  tbey 
believed  was  never  to  die,  entertained  thoughts  of  postponing 
the  establishment  of  his  kingdom,  until  the  young  rival  and 
others  such  as  he  should  be  grown:  or  lest  araon^  the  str 
things  which  he  did,  he  would  give  them  even  at  their  pre- 
sent age,  by  supernatural  power,  qualifications  to  fill  the 
highest  offices  of  his  kingdom.  Whatever  tbeir  particular 
views  and  motives  may  have  been,  their  conduct  seems  to 
have  proceeded  from  the  same  ambitious  spirit,  that  he  had 
before  rebuked,  for  they  received  a  like  rebuke :  and  his  dis- 
course on  this  occasion  may  be  understood  as  if  be  had  I 
"  Give  place,  ye  ambitious  and  worldly-minded,  who  need  to 
be  changed  into  children.  Think  not,  by  this  usurpation  to 
secure  to  yourselves  the  honours  ye  covet.  The  privileges  and 
honours  of  my  kingdom  shall  be  given  to  these  children,  and 
to  other  children  such  as  they."  This  he  said  with  the  same 
symbolical  meaning  as  in  the  former  case,  and  it  is  no  mere 
to  be  taken  literally  than  the  phrase  ■  whosoever  shall  re- 
ceive this  child  in  my  name  receiveth  me,"  is  to  be  taken  liter- 
ally, as  importing  that  this  child  should  be  in  fact  the 
viour's  ambassador  and  representative.  Thus  understood, 
the  words  have  an  animation  that  suitably  expresses  the  great 

F 


62      On  1  Cor.  vii.  14 — The  unbelieving  Husband,  6$c. 

displeasure,  which  the  Redeemer  manifested  on  the  occasion. 
According  to  the  other  interpretations  which  have  been 
proposed,  his  displeasure  does  not  appear  in  his  words,  but 
they  are  comparatively  cold  and  lifeless.  Yet  if  this  inter- 
pretation should  not  be  satisfactory,  there  is  no  need  to  insist 
on  it.  Enough  else  has  been  said,  to  show  that  infant  bap- 
tism cannot  be  proved  by  this  text. 

ON  1   COR.  VII.    14 THE  UNBELIEVING    HUSBAND,    &C. 

Dr.  W.  compares  his  own  interpretation  of  this  text  with 
that  which  Dr.  Gill  has  given.  I  shall  not  think  it  necessary 
to  defend  the  interpretation  of  Dr.  Gill,  as  a  different  one, 
which  is  contained  in  a  note  p.  42  of  Pengilly's  Scripture 
Guide  to  Baptism  published  by  the  Baptist  General  Tract 
Society,  appears  to  me  to  give  the  true  sense  of  the  passage. 
It  may  be  seen  in  the  following  extract,  in  which  I  think  it 
is  also  clearly  demonstrated,  that  the  text  is  decisive  against 
infant  baptism. 

u  The  Jews  considered  all  Gentiles  to  be  unclean,  and 
thought  it  unlawful  for  a  Jew  to  be  in  the  house,  keep  com- 
pany, or  eat  with,  or  touch  a  Gentile.  By  some  means,  pos- 
sibly from  the  influence  of  Judaizing  teachers,  the  church  at 
Corinth  seems  to  have  been  agitated  with  the  question  whe- 
ther the  same  rule  ought  not  to  be  established  to  regulate  the 
intercourse  of  the  members  of  the  church  with  other  per- 
sons ;  that  is,  whether  the  church  ought  not  to  decide,  that 
all  who  were  without  were  unclean  to  them  who  were  within  ; 
just  as  Gentiles  were  unclean  to  Jews  ;  and  that  therefore  it 
was  inconsistent  with  Christian  purity  to  dwell,  keep  company, 
or  eat  with,  or  to  touch  them.  While  this  question  was  un- 
dergoing discussion  in  the  church,  it  was  perceived  that  it 
involved  a  very  important  case.  Some  of  their  members  were 
married  to  unbelievers,  and  if  such  a  rule  should  be  establish- 
ed, these  members  would  be  compelled  to  separate  from  their 
unbelieving  husbands  or  wives.  Although  the  lawfulness  of 
the  marriage  was  not  questioned,  yet  it  would  be  unlawful 
for  a  believing  husband  to  dwell  with  his  wife,  until  God  had 
converted  her.  The  church  resolved,  probably  after  much 
discussion  of  the  question,  to  write  to  the  Apostle  respecting 
it.  This  letter  he  had  received,  as  appears  from  the  first 
verse  of  this  chapter.     On  the  general   question  of  inter- 


On  1  Cor.  vii.  14 — The  unbelieving  Husband,  dfc.      63 

course  with  unbelievers  he  treats  in  the  fifth  chapter,  and  de- 
cides that,  to  keep  company  or  eat  with  persons  who  make 
no  pretensions  to  religion  is  not  unlawful,  and  that,  were  all 
such  persons  to  be  esteemed  unclean,  and  their  touch  polluting, 
Christians  must  needs  go  out  of  the  world.  On  the  particu- 
lar case  of  those  members  of  the  church  who  were  married 
to  unbelievers,  the  Apostle  treats  in  the  chapter  before  us. 
He  decides  in  v.  12  and  13  that  they  may  lawfully  dwell 
together,  and  in  v.  14,  for  the  conviction  and  silencing  of  any 
members  of  the  church,  who  might  object  to  his  decision,  he 
in  substance  says ;  the  unbelieving  husband  is  not  unclean,  so 
that  his  wife  may  not  lawfully  dwell  with  him  :  the  unbeliev- 
ing wife  is  not  unclean,  so  that  her  husband  may  not  lawful- 
ly dwell  with  her.  If  they  are  unclean,  then  your  children 
are  unclean,  and  not  one  parent  in  the  whole  church  must 
dwell  with  or  touch  his  children,  until  God  shall  convert 
them ;  and  thus  Christianity  will  be  made  to  sever  the  ties  that 
bind  parents  to  their  children,  and  to  throw  out  the  offspring 
of  Christian  parents  into  the  ungodly  world  from  their  very 
birth,  without  any  provision  for  their  protection,  support,  or 
religious  education. 

u  It  will  be  perceived  in  the  preceding  interpretation  that 
the  phrase  your  children  is  taken  in  a  different  sense  from 
that  which  it  obtains  in  any  of  the  interpretations  usually  of- 
fered. It  is  here  supposed  to  refer  to  the  whole  church. 
Had  the  Apostle  designed  to  speak  of  those  children  only, 
who  have  one  parent  a  believer  and  the  other  an  unbeliever, 
he  would  have  said  (rtKy*  itvrai)  their  children ,  instead  of 
(rgKvec  'vpa*,)  your  children.  In  addressing  the  church,  and 
in  giving  general  precepts,  he  uses  the  pronouns  ye  and  you. 
See  preceding  chapter  throughout,  and  verses  1  and  5  of  this 
chapter.  But  in  v.  8,  where  he  gives  directions  applicable 
to  particular  cases,  although  he  introduces  the  phrase,  "  I  say 
to  the  unmarried  and  widows,"  he  makes  reference  to  these 
persons,  not  by  the  pronoun  you,  but  them:  "It  is  good  for 
them  to  abide  even  as  I."  The  same  mode  of  speaking  he 
continues  to  use  as  far  down  as  to  the  verse  in  question  :  "  let 
them  marry, — let  him  not  put  her  away,— let  her  not  leave 
him."  After  the  same  manner  he  would  have  said,  "  else 
were  their  children  unclean,"  had  he  intended  only  the  chil- 
dren of  such  mixed  cases  of  marriage  as  are  referred  to  in 
the  preceding  part  of  the  verse.     What  further  confirms  this 


64      On  1  Cor.  vii.  14 — The  unbelieving  Husband,  $c. 

opinion,  is,  that  in  the  original  text  the  substantivo  verb  is  in 
the  present  tense;  "  your  children  are  unclean," — a  mode  of 
speaking  more  suited  for  the  stating  of  a  parallel  than  a  de- 
pendent case." 

"  The  general  principles  of  the  preceding  interpretation 
fall  in  precisely  with  the  course  of  the  Apostle's  argument 
commenced  in  the  5th  chapter.  When  these  principles  have 
been  established,  it  is  not  of  vital  importance  to  the  sense  of 
the  passage  to  determine  the  translation  of  the  preposition  «». 
Many  have  translated  it  to  as  it  is  in  the  very  next  verse. 
This  sense  accords  well  with  our  interpretation.  The  unbe- 
lieving husband  is  sanctified  to  the  wife,  just  as  it  is  said  in 
Titus  i.  15,  "  unto  the  pure  all  things  are  pure."  But  per- 
haps the  more  literal  rendering,  in,  will  give  the  Apostle's 
sense  more  accurately.  While  both  parents  lived  in  unbelief 
they  were  unclean,  to  themselves,  and  to  each  other  :  "  unto 
them  that  are  defiled  and  unbelieving  is  nothing  pure,  but 
even  their  mind  and  conscience  is  defiled."  Titus  i.  15. 
According  to  the  Jewish  rules  respecting  ceremonial  clean- 
ness the  conversion  of  one  party  would  not  render  the  other 
party  holy.  But  in  gospel  ceremonies  it  is  different.  By 
the  abrogation  of  the  Jewish  ceremonial  law,  and  by  the  con- 
version of  the  wife,  the  unbelieving  husband  (^ytsccrrut)  has 
become  holy,  not  in]  himself,  but  (*»  t«  yvmini)  in  the  wife. 
That  the  Jews  considered  Gentiles  unclean  as  stated  above, 
may  be  proved  from  various  passages  of  scripture.  See  Acts 
x.  28,  xi.  3.  John  xviii.  28.  Gal.  ii.  12.  Dr.  Adam  Clark 
states  in  his  note  on  John  xviii.  28,  "  The  Jews  considered 
even  the  touch  of  a  Gentile  as  a  legal  defilement." 

"  It  is  clearly  implied,  in  the  Apostle's  argument,  that  all 
the  children  of  the  Corinthian  Christians  had  no  nearer  rela- 
tion to  the  church  than  the  unbelieving  husband  of  a  believ- 
ing wife.  He  declares  that  their  cases  are  parallel ;  and  that 
rules  of  intercourse,  which  would  require  the  believing  hus- 
band to  separate  from  his  unbelieving  wife,  would  require 
believing  parents  to  separate  from  their  children.  But  there 
is  no  conclusiveness  in  this  argument,  if  the  children  had 
been  consecrated  to  God  in  baptism,  and  brought  within  the 
pale  of  the  church ;  for  then  the  children  would  stand  in  a 
very  different  relation  to  the  church  and  to  their  parents 
from  that  of  the  unbelieving  husband  or  wife.  Therefore, 
unless  we  charge  the   Apostle  with  arguing  most  inconclu- 


On  1  Cor.  vii.  14 — Tfie  unbelieving  Husband,  <$fc.      65 

sively,  infant  baptism  and  infant  church  membership  were 
wholly  unknown  to  the  Corinthian  church,  and  if  to  the 
Corinthian  church,  unquestionably  to  all  the  churches  of  those 
times." 

A  note  appended  to  Wilson's  Scripture  Manual  exhibiting 
the  same  general  view  of  this  text  concludes  thus,  "  The 
Apostle  in  effect  says,  S  If  it  is  unlawful  for  a  member  of  the 
church  to  dwell,  keep  company,  or  eat  with,  or  touch  an  un- 
believer, then  it  is  unlawful  for  you  to  dwell,  keep  company, 
or  eat  with,  or  touch,  your  children,  and  consequently  the 
care,  support,  and  especially  the  religious  education  of  them 
must  be  wholly  neglected.'  The  laws  of  the  commonwealth 
of  Israel  are  not  applicable  to  gospel  churches,  because  of 
their  different  organization.  That  children  are  not  members 
of  the  latter,  is  the  very  fact  upon  which  the  Apostles  seizes, 
for  the  foundation  of  his  argument  in  this  text,  which  is 
therefore  decisive,  against  infant  baptism." 

I  am  sorry  that  we  cannot  be  favoured  with  remarks  from 
Dr.  W.  on  the  preceding  interpretation.  It  corresponds  so 
nearly  with  much  that  he  has  wrrittsn,  that  I  am  ready  to  con- 
clude, it  will  commend  itself  to  his  judgment.  He  says  p. 
86.  "  Ax«$wgros,  according  to  Schleusner,  signifies,  that 
which  is  prohibited  by  the  Mosaic  law,  or  that  from  which 
the  people  of  God  were  required  to  separate  themselves.'' "  Re- 
ferring to  Acts  xiv.  28,  he  says ;  "  A  man  is  there  called 
«*«,9-<*gTo$,  unclean,  with  whom  the  Jews  thought  it  unlawful 
to  have  any  familiar  intercourse."  He  represents  it,  as  of- 
ten used  to  denote  a  pagan,  an  alien  from  the  worship  of  the 
true  God,  or  one  who  does  not  belong  to  the  people  of  God, 
or  to  the  society  of  Christians.  The  text  under  consi- 
deration he  renders  thus.:  "  Alioquin  et  liberi  vestri  re- 
moti  essent  a  societate  Christianorum.  Otherwise  your 
children  also  would  be  removed  from  the  society  of  Chris- 
tians." Dr.  W.  urges  it  as  of  the  first  importance  to  no- 
tice the  peculiar  Hebrew  sense  of  the  principal  words  found 
in  the  passage  before  us,  because  Paul  was  by  birth  and  edu- 
cation a  Hebrew.  Let  us  then  take  the  very  sense  of 
atKxB-ot£Te<;  given  above  :  "  that  from  which  the  people  of  God 
were  required  to  separate  themselves :  a  man  with  whom  the 
Jews  thought  it  unlawful  to  have  any  familiar  intercourse." 
With  this  explanation  of  the  term  in  our  minds,  Jet  us 
come  to  the  interpretation  of  the  text  in  question  :  "  Other-- 

p  2 


66 


On  1  Cor.  vii.  14 — The  unbelieving  Husband,  fyc. 


wise  your  children  also  would  be  removed  from  the  society  of 
Christians."  If  the  society  of  Christians  means  the  familiar 
intercourse  of  Christians,  then  Schleusner's  interpretation  is 
precisely  that  which  is  given  in  the  preceding  extract. 

Dr.  W.  explains  the  sanctification  of  the  unbelieving  hus- 
band thus :  p.  90.  "  By  his  connexion  in  marriage  with  a 
believing  wife,  he  is,  in  some  sort,  separated  from  the  society 
of  heathen,  certainly  from  the  familiar  intercourse  with  them 
which  he  once  had  :  that,  on  account  of  the  pious  woman 
with  whom  he  is  so  closely  connected,  he  is  to  be  regarded  in 
a  light  different  from  that,  in  which  he  could  be  regarded,  if 
he  were  altogether  a  pagan,  and  had  no  such  relation  to  a 
Christian  partner  ;  and  that  by  the  effect  which  her  faith  pro- 
duces upon  him,  he  is  brought  into  such  a  state,  that  she  may 
with  propriety  continue  to  live  with  him.  Their  inter- 
course comes  under  a  sanctifying  influence  by  means  of  her 
piety."  Let  the  holiness  of  the  children  be  understood  in 
precisely  the  same  way,  as  relating  to  familiar  intercourse, 
and  to  the  propriety  of  their  parents'  living  with  them  :  the 
interpretation  of  Dr.  W.  will  then  agree  in  what  relates  to 
themeaning  of  the  principal  terms,  with  that  which  is  con- 
tained in  the  preceding  extract.  With  this  agrees  also  what 
he  has  said,  p.  92,  "  Now  the  Apostle  virtually  told  the  Co- 
rinthian Christians,  that  the  ancient,  national  law  was  not 
binding  upon  them,  any  more  than  the  law  of  circumcision  ; 
that  those  believers  who  were  lawfully  married  to  unbelievers 
had  no  occasion  to  dissolve  the  marriage  bond.  And  he 
suggested  to  them  one  consideration  of  great  weight,  namely, 
that  if  according  to  the  Mosaic  law,  and  the  example  of  the 
people  in  the  time  of  Ezra,  they  were  to  put  away  their  un- 
believing partners,  and  so  treat  them  as  pagans,  tocu^a^ru, 
unclean,  they  must  consider  their  children  also  as  unclean, 
i.  e.  heathen  children,  and  put  them  away  likewise,  as 
the  people  did  in  the  case  referred  to."  These  three  ex- 
tracts from  Dr.  W's.  book,  might  almost  take  the  place  of 
the  note  quoted  from  Pergilly's  Scripture  Guide,  so  nearly 
do  they  coincide  with  it.  If  our  Pasdobaptist  brethren  could 
but  admit  it  into  their  minds  that  children  may,  without  being 
baptized,  have  familiar  intercourse  with  their  Christian  pa- 
rents, and  continue  to  live  with  them,  with  just  as  much  pro- 
priety as  an  unbelieving  husband  and  believing  wife  may 
continue  to  live  together  ;  the   sense  of  the  Apostle,  in  this 


On  1  Cor.  vii.  14 — The  unbelieving  Husband,  6$c.      67 

much  disputed  text,  would-be  obvious  and  clear.  Is  not  the 
unbaptized  child  of  a  Baptist  holy,  in  precisely  the  same  sense 
in  which  the  unconverted  wife  of  a  Paedobaptist  can  be  so 
regarded  ? 

To  the  argument  from  this  text  in  favour  of  infant  baptism 
it  has  ever  been  an  insuperable  objection,  that  it  makes  the 
holiness  of  the  children  different  from  that  of  the  unbelieving 
husband  or  wife.  Tn  meeting  this  objection  Dr.  W.  at  first 
argues  that  the  difference  might  be  admitted  especially  since 
a  verb  is  used  in  one  case  and  an  adjective  in  the  other.  But 
how  shall  it  be  determined  whether  it  is  the  adjective  holy 
which  is  applied  to  the  children,  or  the  verb  to  make  holy 
which  is  applied  to  the  unbelieving  husband  or  wife,  that  has 
baptism  in  it  ?  We  are  all  certain  that  one  of  them  does  not 
include  baptism  :  who  is  certain  that  the  other  does  ?  But  if 
there  is  uncertainty  whether  the  term  holy  includes  baptism, 
then  infant  baptism  derives,  at  the  most,  only  a  doubtful  sup- 
port from  this  text :  and  the  doubt  is  increased  just  in  propor- 
tion to  the  improbability  that  the  Apostle  would  use  these 
words  in  different  senses  in  the  same  sentence:  and  to  the 
possibility  that  a  clear  and  consistent  meaning  may  be  assign- 
ed into  which  baptism  does  not  enter.  But  Dr.  W.  finally  la- 
bours to  show  that,  according  to  his  interpretation,  "the 
two  words,  though  the  one  is  a  verb  and  the  other  an  adjec- 
tive, have  really  the  same  general  sense."  He  accounts  for 
it  that  baptism  is  included  in  the  one  case  and  not  in  the 
other  by  saying  "  tho  difference  so  far  as  there  is  any,  arises 
from  the  obvious  difference  of  the  subjects. "  See  p.  90  to 
the  end  of  the  paragraph.  In  all  this  a  discerning  mind  will 
perceive,  that  there  is  a  begging  of  the  question.  This  text 
is  brought  to  prove  that  infants  are  proper  subjects  of  bap- 
tism. The  holiness  which  in  this  text,  in  the  same  general 
sense,  is  predicated  of  two  different  subjects,  it  is  said  either 
includes  baptism,  or  does  not  include  it  according  to  the 
difference  in  the  subjects.  Now  suppose  we  affirm  that  nei- 
ther of  the  subjects  is  such  that  the  holiness  thereof  can 
properly  include  baptism,  will  this  text  prove  the  contrary  ? 
When  an  unbelieving  husband  and  an  infant  child  are  before 
the  mind,  who  knows  that  there  is  such  a  difference  in  these 
subjects,  that  baptism  may,  with  propriety,  be  administered 
to  the  one  and. not  to  the  other?  Any  one  who  knows  this 
beforehand  may  adopt   Dr.  W's.   interpretation.     This  fa- 


68  Mosheim's  Account  of  Baptism. 

mous  text,  on  which  so  much  reliance  has  been  placed,  can 
prove  infant  baptism  to  none  but  those  who  already  be- 
lieve it. 


MOSHEIM  S  ACCOUNT  OF  BAPTISM. 

To  the  examination,  which  you  have  made  of  the  testimony 
from  ecclesiastical  history,  I  feel  disposed  to  subjoin  a  remark 
founded  on  the  account  given  by  Dr.  Mosheim.  He  says, 
Cent.  2,  Chap.  4,  Sect.  13,  "  Adult  persons  were  prepared 
for  baptism  by  abstinence,  prayer,  and  other  religious  exer- 
cises. It  was  to  answer  for  them  that  sponsors  or  godfa- 
thers were  first  instituted,  though  they  were  afterwards  ad- 
mitted also  in  the  baptism  of  infants."  This  is  the  first  inti- 
mation which  he  gives,  that  infants  were  baptized.  In  the 
first  century  he  speaks  of  the  baptism  of  none  others  than 
Christian  converts,  and  having  stated  that  baptism  was  ad- 
ministered "  by  immersion  of  the  whole  body  in  the  baptismal 
font,"  he  adds,  "  It  was  customary  that  the  converts  should 
be  baptized  and  received  into  the  church,  by  those  under 
whose  ministry  they  had  embraced  the  Christian  doctrine." 
In  the  second  century  he  says,  "  The  persons  that  were  to 
be  baptized  after  they  had  repeated  the  creed,  confessed  and 
renounced  their  sins,  and  particularly  the  Devil  and  his 
pompous  allurements,  were  immersed  under  water  and  re- 
ceived into  Christ's  kingdom  by  a  solemn  invocation  of  Fa- 
ther, Son  and  Holy  Ghost,  according  to  express  command 
of  our  blessed  Lord." 

Now,  if  the  facts  were  just  as  they  appear  jn  this  history 
is  it  at  all  probable  that  infant  baptism  was  an  original  practice? 
If  both  believer's  baptism  and  infant  baptism  had  been  prac- 
tised together  from  the  times  of  the  Apostles  without  spon- 
sors, is  it  at  all  probable  that  when  sponsors  were  introduced, 
they  should  have  been  xisedfrst  for  adults  and  afterwards  for 
infants?  Is  it  not  much  more  probable  that  baptism  with 
sponsors  just  as  it  appears  on  the  face  of  this  history,  was  an 
intermediate  step  between  believer's  baptism  and  the  baptism 
of  infants  ?  When  sponsors  had  been  admitted  in  behalf  of 
adults,  to  repeat  the  creed  and  the  ceremony  of  confessing 
and  renouncing  their  sins,  the  Devil  and  his  pompous  allure- 
ments, probably  at  first  with  some  token  of  assent  on  the 
part  of  the  candidates ;  it  became  easy  to  introduce  gradu.- 


Infant  Dedication.  69 

ally  the  baptism  of  very  young  persons :  and  this  appears  to 
be  precisely  the  state  of  things  of  which  Tertullian  com- 
plained. 

INFANT  DEDICATION. 

The  idea  that  the  baptism  of  infants,  is  a  ceremony  by 
which  they  are  dedicated  to  God,  is  that  which  I  suppose  hai 
the  strongest  hold  on  the  feelings  of  Christian  parents  ;  and 
tends  above  all  others,  to  give  it  respect  in  their  eyes.  It  is 
by  keeping  this  idea  steadily  in  view,  that  Dr.  VV.  has  shown 
how  well  the  practise  accords  with  parental  affection.  He 
says  p.  104,  "  It  must  surely  be  the  wish  of  pious  parents  to 
give  up  their  children  to  God ;  and  to  do  this  in  the  temple 
of  God,  where  the  prayers  of  many  will  ascend  with  their 
own  to  the  Lord  of  heaven  and  earth  in  behalf  of  their  chil- 
dren." But  if  we  may  argue  from  one  dispensation  to  ano- 
ther, the  ceremony  of  public  dedication  "in  the  temple"  was 
not  made  anciently  by  circumcision,  but  by  certain  appoint- 
ed sacrifices,  and  therefore  it  ought  not  now  to  be  made  by 
baptism,  but  by  the  spiritual  sacrifices  of  prayer  and  praise. 
Circumcision  might  be  performed,  and  I  presume  generally 
was  performed  in  the  family,  and  without  any  officiating 
priest,  and  so  far  was  it  from  being  considered  as  consecrating 
the  infant  or  rendering  him  holy  to  the  Lord,  that  the  child 
was  considered  to  be,  with  the  mother,  unfit  to  touch  a  hal- 
lowed thing  or  enter  the  sanctuary  until  three  and  thirty  days 
afterward,  when  the  sacrifices  were  offered  which  were  re- 
quired in  the  ceremony  of  purification,  and  when  the  infant 
might  be  publicly  presented  to  the  Lord.  See  Doddridge, 
Clark,  and  especially  Campbell  on  Luke  ii.  22.  It  is  true 
that  no  sacrifices  whatever  could  purify  or  consecrate  an  un- 
circumcised  male,  and  therefore  the  circumcision  of  male  in- 
fants must  precede  their  purification  and  presentation ;  but  it 
is  equally  true  that  circumcision  was  not  the  dedicating  rite. 
The  sacrifices  of  purification  were  allowed  to  be  made  for  fe- 
male infants,  without  any  previous  prerequisite  rite,  at  the  end 
of  eighty  days ;  and  in  our  freer  dispensation,  infants  both 
male  and  female  may  from  their  very  birth  be  given  up  to  the 
Lord,  with  the  sacrifices  of  prayer  and  praise,  without  any 
prerequisite  rite  whatever  ;  and  this,  I  presume,  every  pious 
parent  will  be  inclined  to  do,  and  will  often  carry  them  on  his 


70  Mode  of  Baptism. 

heart  before  the  Lord  ;  and,  glad  that  no  purifying  ceremony 
is  now  necessary  in  order  to  their  admission,  he  will  delight 
to  take  them  with  him  to  "  the  temple  of  God,"  whatever  he 
may  think  as  to  the  necessity  cr  propriety  of  making  a  public 
solemn  presentation  of  them  there. 

MODE    OF    BAPTISM. 

■  I  shall  wholly  decline  to  follow  Dr.  Woods  in  his  arguments 
on  the  mode  of  baptism,  and  the  rather  as  you  propose  to 
take  up  this  part  of  the  subject.  At  present  I  feel,  as  to  this 
matter,  more  inclined  to  lament  than  to  argue.  I  lament  in 
the  first  place,  with  Dr.  Campbell,  who,  in  his  note  on  Matt, 
iii.  11,  after  having  stated  that  "the  word  /3««rrj£«fy,  both  in 
sacred  authors,  and  in  classical,  signifies  to  dip,  to  plunge,  to 
immerse"  subjoins :  "  It  is  to  be  regretted  that  we  have  so 
much  evidence  that  even  good  and  learned  men  allow  their 
judgments  to  be  warped  by  the  sentiments  and  customs  of  the 
sect  which  they  prefer  :  and  in  the  second  place  I  lament 
that  this  ordinance  of  Christianity  should  have  been  so  cor- 
rupted as  to  give  entirely  a  false  view  of  the  gospel  we  pro- 
fess." 

Perhaps,  some  explanation  on  this  last  point  is  necessary. 
When  a  soul  comes  to  Christ,  it  often  happens,  that  one  of 
the  last  strong  holds  of  Satan,  from  which  it  is  delivered,  is 
a  trust  in  its  own  evangelical  obedience.  We  soon  learn  to 
distinguish  between  the  righteousness  of  Christ,  and  our  own 
legal  righteousness;  but  to  distinguish  between  the  work  of 
Christ  for  us,  as  the  object  of  our  faith,  and  the  effects  of 
grace  within  us,  communicated  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  is  far  less 
easy.  But  that  faith  which  fixes  upon  internal  sanctification, 
instead  of  Christ,  is  not  the  faith  of  Christ.  The  gospel  ex- 
hibits Christ;  the  supper  exhibits  Christ:  and  surely,  that  or* 
dinance  by  which  we  first  profess  the  faith  of  Christ,  ought 
not  to  hide  him  from  view.  When  a  believer  is  immersed, 
the  burial  and  resurrection  of  Christ  are  exhibited,  and  the 
very  ceremony,  by  which  he  takes  upon  him  the  profession 
of  Christ,  significantly  tells,  that  his  faith  is  not  fixed  upon 
internal  grace,  but  upon  him  who  was  delivered  for  our  of- 
fences, and  raised  again  for  our  justification.  But,  when  an 
infant  is  sprinkled,  is  Christ  exhibited  ?  Let  Dr.  Woods  an- 
swer.    "  When  adult  believers  receive  baptism  themselves. 


Mode  of  Baptism.  71 

they  hereby  express  their  belief,  that  they  are  by  nature  pol» 
luted  with  sin  and  must  be  sanctified  by  the  Spirit,  in  order 
to  be  admitted  into  heaven;  and  they  express  their  desire  for 
such  sanctification,  and  their  determination  to  seek  after  it, 
in  the  diligent  use  of  all  appointed  means.  When  we  pre- 
sent our  infant  children  for  baptism,  we  express  our  belief 
that  they  are  the  subjects  of  moral  pollution,  and  must  be 
born  of  the  Spirit,  in  order  to  be  admitted  into  the  kingdom 
of  heaven:  and,  we  express  our  earnest  desire  that  they  may 
experience  this  spiritual  renovation,  and  our  solemn  deter- 
mination to  seek  after  it,  by  fervent  prayer  to  God,  and  by 
faithful  attention  to  all  the  duties  of  christian  parents.  This 
seems  to  me  a  perfectly  natural  and  satisfactory  view,  of  what 
is  signified  by  the  baptism  of  children,"  p.  137.  Baptism,  I 
know,  is  a  mere  outward  ordinance,  a  mere  sign;  and  so  the 
word  Christ,  is  a  mere  word,  a  mere  sign.  Neither  the  or- 
dinance nor  the  word,  can  save  the  soul.  Yet,  is  it  not  highly 
important,  in  preaching  the  gospel,  that  the  name  Christ 
should  represent  the  true  Saviour  ?  and  is  it  not  in  like  man- 
ner important  in  administering  baptism,  that  it  should  repre- 
sent the  true  object  of  faith  ? 

May  you,  my  dear  brother,  ever  be  faithful  to  keep  all  the 
commandments  of  our  Lord,  just  as  they  have  been  delivered 
to  us;  neither  breaking  the  least  of  them  yourself,  nor  teach- 
ing others  to  do  so:  and  while  you  are  careful  to  observe 
even  a  mere  ceremony,  if  he  was  careful  to  institute  it,  may 
the  better  things  of  the  kingdom,  even  righteousness,  peace, 
and  joy,  in  the  Holy  Ghost,  be  yours  for  ever. 

I  am,  as  ever,  your  affectionate  brother, 

John, 


SETTER  VIZ. 


Dear  Brother — In  my  last  I  offered  some  remarks  on  the 
testimonies  which  Dr.  Woods  adduces  from  Ecclesiastical 
History  in  favour  of  Infant  Baptism ;  and  intimated  that  I 
would  also  notice  his  observations  on  the  Mode  of  Baptism. 
I  now  proceed  to  fulfill  my  engagement. 


72  The  common  Signification  of  Baptize. 


MODE  OF  BAPTISM. 

An  honest  disciple  of  Christ  will  cheerfully  accompany  Dr. 
W.  to  the  Commission,  to  ascertain  what  is  his  duty  as  to  the 
ordinance  of  Baptism.  He  will  desire  to  know  simply  what 
was  the  mind  of  Christ ;  and  having  learned  this,  he  will  yield 
implicit  obedience.  If  it  should  seem  to  him  that  baptism 
and  the  washing  of  feet  are  duties  equally  obligatory  upon  all 
the  followers  of  Christ,  so  far  as  it  appears  from  his  com- 
mands; (p.  168)  then  he  will  be  governed  by  the  same  rules 
in  his  observance  of  these  institutions.  He  will  either  con- 
tent himself  in  both  cases  with  the  moral  signification  of  these 
rites,  wholly  disregarding  the  outward  ceremony :  or  he  will, 
in  both  cases,  literally  obey  the  commands.  But  if  it  should 
appear  to  him  that  the  command  of  Christ  to  baptize  was  in- 
tended to  be  understood  literally,  and  to  be  obeyed  literally 
to  the  end  of  time,  (and  this,  so  far  as  I  can  perceive,  is  Dr. 
W's.  opinion,  and  certainly  he  will  not  argue  that  the  neglect 
of  one  commandment  will  justify  the  neglect  of  another,) 
then,  however  he  may  decide  concerning  the  washing  of  feet, 
he  will  be  satisfied  with  nothing  short  of  literal  obedience  to 
the  command  by  which  baptism  is  enjoined.  He  will  there- 
fore look  to  the  commission  as  his  rule  of  duty,  not  only  when 
he  is  inquiring  who  are  the  proper  subjects  of  baptism,  but 
also  when  he  is  inquiring  how  this  rite  is  to  be  administered: 
and  as  in  the  one  case,  so  in  the  other,  he  will  avail  himself 
of  every  light  within  his  reach,  which  may  assist  him  to  dis- 
cover what  was  the  mind  of  Christ.  He  finds  the  whole  di- 
rection in  the  commission  as  to  the  manner  of  administering 
this  rite,  contained  in  the  term  fiecirTtfyiTif.  It  will  therefore 
be  his  single  inquiry,  what  Christ  meant  by  this  word. 

THE  COMMON  SIGNIFICATION  OF  BAPTIZE. 

In  explaining  the  terms  used  in  1  Cor.  vii.  14.  Dr.  W.  re- 
fers to  the  usus  loquendi.  He  says,  p.  86,  "  The  chief  argu- 
ment Which  I  shall  now  urge  in  its  support  is  the  usus  loquendi, 
that  is,  the  sense  generally  attached  in  other  parts  of  scrip- 
ture to  the  principal  words,  on  which  the  interpretation 
must  depend ;  and  especially  the  sense  which  these  words 
have,  when  applied  to  the  same  subjects."  Precisely  this  rule 
of  interpretation  should  be  applied  to  the  case  now  before  us. 


The  common  Signification  of  Baptize.  73 

Whatever  was  usually  meant  when  a  man  was  said  to  be  bap- 
tized, the  Saviour  meant  when  he  gave  his  commission. 
There  are  few  words  in  any  language,  which  are  not  used 
occasionally  in  a  sense  different  from  the  prevailing  one ;  but 
in  such  cases  we  always  expect  to  find  something  either  in 
the  nature  of  the  subjects  to  which  they  are  applied,  or  in  the 
connexion  in  which  they  are  used,  that  will  guide  us  to  the 
peculiar  sense  they  then  obtain.  If  every  sentence  shall  be 
declared  to  be  ambiguous  or  indefinite  in  its  meaning,  the 
words  of  which  are  occasionally  used  in  a  sense  different  from 
the  prevailing  one,  then  it  will  be  next  to  impossible  to  com- 
pose a  sentence  which  shall  have  a  certain  and  definite  mean- 
ing. Had  the  commission  been  given  in  the  English  lan- 
guage, '*  Go,  teach  all  nations,  immersing  them,  or  plunging 
them,  or  dipping  them,"  every  Englishman  would  conceive 
the  meaning  sufficiently  certain  and  definite,  and  would  think 
himself  a  prevaricator,  rather  than  an  honest  disciple,  if  he 
should  contend,  that  sprinkling  or  pouring  was  meant,  or  any 
thing  whatever  different  from  the  usual  sense  of  these  terms. 
Yet  in  Johnson's  Dictionary,  the  verb  to  immerse  has  three 
senses  ;  to  plunge,  four ;  and  to  dip  four :  and,  what  is  remark- 
able, one  of  the  senses  of  the  last  verb  is  to  moisten,  to  wet ; 
the  example  for  which  use  of  it  is  the  following  from  Milton  : 

M  And  though  not  mortal,  yet  a  cold  shudd'ring  dew 
Dips  me  all  o'er,  as  when  the  wrath  of  Jove 
Speaks  thunder." 

When  used  in  a  neuter  sense,  one  of  the  meanings  of  the 
same  verb  is  to  enter  slightly  into  any  thing:  the  example  is 
given  from  Pope  :  "  When  I  think  all  the  repetitions  are 
struck  out  in  a  copy,  I  sometimes  find  more  upon  dipping  in 
the  first  volume."  But  what  would  we  think  of  any  one, 
who  should  argue  hence,  that  the  command,  Go  teach  all 
nations,  dipping  them,  means  no  more  than  to  moisten  or  to 
wet,  or  to  cause  to  enter  slightly  into  water,  as  by  stepping 
into  the  edge  of  the  stream  ?  We  should  refer  such  a  one  to 
the  usus  loquendi,  and  if  he  would  not  submit  to  this  supreme 
law  in  language,  we  should  cease  to  reason  with  him. 

To  ascertain  what  is  the  usual  sense  of  baptize,  since  it  is 
a  Greek  word,  our  ultimate  recourse  must  be  to  the  instances 
of  its  use  in  Greek  authors. 


74 


The  common  Signification  of  Baptize, 


The  following  are  the  instances  in  which  fixirr*  is  used  in 
the  Greek  Scriptures. 


Rendered  in  our 

In  Thomson's 

common  version. 

translation. 

Exodus  xii.  22. 

dip. 

dip. 

Lev.  iv.  6. 

dip. 

dip. 

iv.   17. 

dip. 

dip. 

ix.  9. 

dip. 

dip. 

xi.  32. 

put  into. 

plunge. 

* —    xiv.  16. 

dip. 

dip. 

xiv.  51. 

dip. 

dip. 

Num.  xix.  18. 

dip. 

dip. 

Peut.  xxxiii.  24. 

dip. 

bathe. 

Joshua  iii.  15. 

dip. 

dip. 

Ruth  ii.  14. 

dip. 

dip. 

t  Sam.  xiv.  27. 

dip. 

stuck. 

2  Kings  viii.  15. 

dip. 

dip. 

Job  ix.  31. 

plunge. 

plunge. 

Ps.  lxviii.  23. 

dip. 

dip. 

Dan.  iv.  33. 

wet. 

bathe. 

v.  21. 

wet. 

bathe. 

Luke  xvi.  24. 

dip. 

dip. 

John  xiii.  26. 

dip. 

dip. 

Rev.  xix.  13. 

dip- 

dip. 

following  are  the  instances  in  which 

/9ctzrri£*  OCCU 

jrreek  Scriptures  and  the  Apocrypha. 

2  Kings  v.  14. 

dip. 

dip. 

Isaiah  xxi.  4. 

__# 

overwhelm. 

Judith  xii.  7. 

wash. 

Ecclesiasticus  xxxiv 

.  25.  wash. 

Matt.  xx.  22,  23. 

baptize. 

Mark  vii.  4. 

wash. 

~ x.  33,  39. 

baptize. 

Luke  xi.  38. 

wash. 

Luke  xii.  50. 

baptize. 

1  Cor.  x.  2. 

baptize. 

B«jrT(£*  is  used  more  than  seventy  times  in  the  New  Tes- 
tament to  denote  the  Christian  ordinance,  in  all  which  cases 
it  is  rendered  baptize. 

*  Ti»  Hebrew  word  differs  from  the  Greek,  and  is  rendered  affright. 


The  common  Signification  of  Baptize.  75 

It  will  be  seen  from  this  table  of  references,  that  to  dip  is 
most  evidently  the  usual  sense  of  fiontru.  The  derivative 
,5*wt^4»  is  rendered  dip,  overwhelm,  and  wash,  expressing  in 
all  these  instances  an  immersion  of  the  whole  body,  as  will 
appear  from  considering  the  passages  in  which  it  is  so  ren- 
dered. Compare  Ecclesiasticus  xxiv.  35,  with  Numbers  xix. 
19,  and  Mark  vii.  4,  and  Luke  xi.  38,  with  Dr,  Campbell's 
note  on  John  xiii.  10.  Several  of  the  instances  in  which  it  is 
rendered  baptize,  refer  to  overwhelming  sufferings,  and  one  of 
them  to  the  children  of  Israel  being  completely  surrounded 
by  the  cloud  and  by  the  sea,  as  described  Exodus  xiv.  29. 

In  determining  what,  according  to  the  usus  loquendi,  is  the 
sense  of  uKccB-ct^rag,  Dr.  W.  refers,  p.  80,  to  the  authority  of 
Schleusner.  Let  us  see  what  the  same  author  has  said  on  the 
word  frx-xriTji. — "  flAwnZ*.  1.  Properly;  immergo  ac  intin- 
go,  in  aquam  mergo  :  [to  immerse,  to  dip,  to  plunge  into  wa- 
ter.]— 2.  It  denotes  abluo,  lavo,  aqua  purgo  ;  [to  wash  away, 
to  wash,  to  cleanse  with  water.]  Mark  vii.  4.  Luke  xi.  38. 
— 3.  Hence  it  is  transferred  to  the  solemn  rite  of  baptism. 
Matt,  xxviii.  19. — 4.  Metaphorically,  like  the  Latin  imbuo, 
large  et  copiose  do  atque  suppedito,  large  profundo  ;  [to  give 
and  supply  largely  and  abundantly,  to  pour  out  largely.]  Matt, 
iii.  11,  Mark  i.  8,  Luke  iii.  16,  John  i.  33,  Acts  i.  5,  coll. 
Acts  ii.  17,  xi.  16. — 4.  By  metaphor  /3xTi£ior§at  signifies  ca- 
lamitatum  fluctibus  obrui,  mergi  miseriis  ;  [to  be  overwhelmed 
in  the  billows  of  calamities,  to  be  plunged  in  miseries. ]" 

Quotations  might  easily  be  made  from  Josephus'and  hea- 
then authors,  (as  the  late  Dr.  Ryland  has  done  in  his  Candid 
Statement)  and  also  from  eminent  critics  and  lexicographers, 
which  would  abundantly  confirm  the  declaration  of  Dr. 
Campbell,  that  "  fa-art^a,  both  in  sacred  authors  and  in  clas- 
sical, signifies  to  dip,  to  plunge,  to  immerse :  and  is  always 
construed  suitably  to  this  meaning."  But  the  references  and 
quotations  already  made,  are  sufficient  to  show,  that  a  man  is 
not  baptized  in  the  sense  of  that  term,  which  was  usual  in  the 
days  of  Christ  and  his  Apostles,  when  a  very  small  part  of 
his  body  is  made  wet  with  a  very  small  quantity  of  water. 

But  Christ  must  be  understood  to  have  meant  definitely 
and  precisely,  what  the  word  he  used  imported,  in  the  usual 
sense  of  it,  unless  it  can  be  shown  from  its  connexion,  or  the 
circumstances  in  which  it  was  uttered,  that  it  was  meant  to 
be  taken  in  a  different  sense.     "The  rule  of  interpretation, 


76  The  common  Signification  of  Baptize. 

which  is  of  the  highest  consequence,  and  which  will  aid  us 
most  in  discovering  the  true  meaning  of  the  scriptures,  in  re- 
lation to  this  suhject  now  before  us  is,  that  we  put  ourselvcSi 
as  far  as  may  be,  in  the  place  of  those  who  gave  instruction, 
and  of  those  who  received  zV."  p.  42.  Now,  as  an  argumen- 
tum  ad  hominem,  proselyte  baptism,  it  is  admitted  on  all  hands, 
was  performed  by  immersion;  and  therefore,  if  the  Apostles 
would  naturally  think  of  this,  when  interpreting  and  execut- 
ing their  commission,  they  must  have  supposed  that  immer- 
sion was  intended. 

It  happens  that  (ZxTrri^at  is  less  frequently  used  in  the  Greek 
scriptures,  than  its  primitive,  /3*?tta/,  except  where  it  refers  to 
the  ordinance  in  question.  Advantage  is  taken  of  this  cir- 
cumstance. Dr.  W.  says,  "  There  are  many  reasons  for  sup- 
posing that  SccxTtl^a,  being  a  derivative  from  fixm*,  has  a 
less  definite,  and  less  forcible  sense  than  the  original,"  p.  15  k 
But  why  did  the  Saviour  use  the  lengthened  derivative  to  ex- 
press his  intense  sufferings,  if  the  primitive  would  have  been 
more  forcible  ?  There  are  many  derivatives  that  are  more 
forcible  than  their  primitives;  and  it  should  not  be  has- 
tily concluded  that  this  is  less  so.  It  would  scarcely  have 
been  preferred  to  the  primitive  word  to  express  the  sinking 
of  a  ship,  or  the  immersing  of  a  man  until  he  was  drowned, 
if  it  had  been  less  forcible  in  its  signification.  See  Jose- 
phus'  Antiq.,  book  9.,  ch.  10.,  §  2.;  and  book  15.,  ch.  3.,  § 
3.;  and  Wars  of  the  Jews,  book  1.,  ch.  22.,  §  2.  The  true 
power  of  "the  Greek  termination  *£*>,  is  explained  in  the  fol- 
lowing extract  from  Judson's  sermon  on  baptism.  M  The 
word  denoting  baptism  is  derived  from  the  verbal  of  this  pri- 
mitive word,  by  a  change  in  the  termination,  which,  accord- 
ing to  an  established  principle  of  the  Greek  language,  never 
affects  the  primary  idea;  but  when  made  on  words  express- 
ing a  quality  or  attribute,  merely  conveys  the  additional  idea 
of  causing  or  making. 

'  "  The  termination  <£*,  in  Greek  derivatives,  is  precisely  of 
the  same  import,  as  the  termination/^,  in  English  derivatives, 
from  the  Latin  fio,  to  make;  as,  sanctify,  to  make  holy,  from 
sanctus,  holy;  mollify,  to  soften,  from  mollis,  soft,  &c.  On 
the  same  principle,  in  Greek; 

ayvi^a,  to  purify,  from  ityvti  pure ; 
retpigu,  to  make  wise,  from  <r«P«$  wise,' 
Vtpt&i  to  fill,  from  ytp*,  to  be  full,  &c» 


The  common  Signification  of  Baptize.  77 

"  And  derivatives  are  thus  formed,  not  only  from  adjectives 

and  neuter  verbs,  but  also  from  the  verbals  of  transitive  verbs: 

xi$e»,  to  choose;  *^jt««,  chosen;  xi^tlt^,  to  make  chosen. 

to  choose. 
lufxtru,  to  show ;  tfc<pcc*ni>  shown ;  tfcfetvfy,  to  make  shown. 

to  show; 
ku.6ui£h,  to  cleanse ;  xxOx^os,  clean;  xx6x%i£a>,to  make  clean. 

to  cleanse; 
*•»,  to  drink ;  «r«7«s,  drank;  noli^a,  to  cause  to  be  drank  : 
pcctra/,   to   sprinkle;    pxvros,  sprinkled;   ^xir^u,  to  makt 

sprinkled,  to  sprinkle. 
And  according  to  the  same  analogy;  /3**-r<v,  to  immerse. 
flttx-Tos,  immersed;  /Zxzrrig*,  to  make  immersed,  to  immersed 
From  this  explanation  it  appears  that  Bx^t^u  is  neither 
less  forcible,  nor  less  definite  in  its  signification,  than  fix-*?*. 
Dr.  Campbell  says,  they  are  synonymous;  notes  on  Mark,v\i. 
4.,  and  Matt.  xx.  22. 

It  may  here  be  added,  that  the  force  of  the  Greek  termina- 
tion i£»  is  often  expressed  in  English  by  ize ;  as, 
legal;  legalize,  to  make  legal; 
harmonious;  harmonize,  to  make  harmonious ; 
from  system,  systematic,  has  been  formed  systematize, 

to  make  systematic ; 
so  from  to  jeopard,  to  hazard,  some  have  formed  to 
jeopardize,  to  make  hazarded,  to  liazard. 
According  to  the  same  analogy  may  be  formed, 
from  to  bapt,  (for  so  fixx-ru  may  be  Anglicised,  or  made 
English,)  to  dip,  to  baptize,^o  make  dipped. 
Dr.  W.  says,  p.  151.,  "  Yet  even  fix-wra  does  not  always 
signify  a  total  immersion.     This  might  be  made  evident  from 
classic  usage;  and  it  is  perfectly  evident  from  the  New  Testa- 
ment. See  Matt.  xxvi.  23.     He  that  dippeth  his  hand  with  me 
in  the  dish;   tfA^ct-^et^  rnt  xi,iel-      Mark  has  it  o  tp/Zxirrepfit;, 
he,  the  person  that  dippeth  with  me  in  the  dish.     Now,  what- 
ever liquid  the  dish  contained,  it  cannot  be  supposed,  that  Ju- 
das plunged  his  hand  all  over  in  that  liquid.     Nothing  more 
can  be  meant,  than  that  he  took  the  bitter  herbs  that  were 
eaten  at  the  passover,  or  other  articles  of  food  ,  and  with  his 
fingers  dipped  them  in  the  sauce  prepared.     And  yet  it  is  said 
by  Matthew,  that  Judas  dipped  his  hand,  and  by  Mark,  that 
he  himself  dipped  in  the  dish."     I  have  given  this  quotation 

o  2 


78  The  common  Signification  of  Baptize. 

entire,  because  it  contains  all  the  author  has  said  against  our 
acceptation  of  Pxtt*.  "It  does  not  always  signify  a  total 
immersion."  I  grant  this.  To  dip  the  hand  as  in  this  in- 
stance, or  the  tip  of  the  finger,  as  in  Luke,  xvi.  24.,  does  not 
mean  an  immersion  of  the  whole  body,  but  only  of  that  part 
which  is  said  to  be  dipped.  If  it  could  be  made  to  appear, 
that  Christ  commanded  to  baptize  the  head,  or  the  face,  or 
the  hands,  or  the  feet  of  his  disciples,  then  we  should  content 
ourselves  with  the  immersion  of  these  parts  only;  but  our 
brethren  maintain,  that  they  have  baptized  the  whole  man, 
when  they  have  applied  a  very  little  water  to  a  very  small 
part  of  his  body.  "It  cannot  be  supposed  that  Judas  plung- 
ed his  hand  all  over  in  that  liquid."  This  I  also  grant.  To 
dip  the  hand  in  a  dish,  does  not  mean  to  plunge  it  all  over  in 
a  liquid.  I  suppose,  a  hand  may  be  dipped  in  an  empty  dish, 
or  in  a  dish  containing  solids.  Does  Dr.  W.  think  the  evan- 
gelist meant  that  Judas  washed,  or  wet,  or  sprinkled  his  hand 
with  this  liquid  ?  No.  He  does  not  think  so.  He  chooses 
none  of  these  terms  by  which  to  explain  this  Greek  verb.  But 
what  term  does  he  use  for  this  purpose  ?  "  Nothing  more," 
he  says,  "  can  be  meant,  than  that  he  took  the  bitter  herbs 
which  were  eaten  at  the  Passover,  or  other  articles  of  food, 
and  with  his  fingers  dipped  them  in  the  sauce  prepared."  The 
word,  after  all,  is  dipped.  Though  the  noun  hand  is  explain- 
ed to  mean  the  herbs,  or  food,  which  it  held,  and  the  noun 
dish,  to  mean  the  liquid  which  it  contained,  the  verb  amidst 
all  these  figurative  interpretations,  still  retains  its  literal  sig- 
nification, to  dip,  even  according  to  Dr.  W.'s  decision;  and 
this  decision  must  be  regarded  as  the  more  important,  because 
it  is  upon  the  only  case  adduced,  as  an  exception  to  the  pre- 
vailing sense.  But  Dr.  W.  further  notices,  that  Mark  uses 
the  middle  voice  of  the  verb,  o  epPccrTtpivos,  which  he  renders 
he  himself  dipped.  Does  he  mean  hereby,  (for  I  know  not 
what  he  means,)  that  the  subject  and  the  object  of  the  verb 
in  the  middle  voice  must  be  the  same  ?  '*  The  middle  voice 
signifies  what  we  do,  first,  to  ourselves,  second,  for  ourselves." 
Valpy's  Greek  Grammar.  Now,  whatever  it  was  that  Judas 
dipped,  there  is  no  difficulty  in  accounting  for  the  use  of  the 
middle  voice,  since  he  dipped  for  himself.  Eminent  critics 
understand  the  middle  voice,  fiwrri^aivrui,  in  Mark,  vii.  4.,  in 
this  way,  and  suppose  it  means  the  washing  of  the  articles 
brought  from  market,  an  interpretation  by  no  means  unfavour- 
able to  immersion. 


The  common  Signification  of  Baptize.  79 

Concerning  the  word  /3#stt<£*,  Dr.  W.  says,  "  it  does  in- 
deed signify  to  immerse  or  dip  in  water ;  but  it  also  signifies 
to  wash,  and  to  wash  in  different  ways."  If  it  does  indeed 
signify  to  immerse  or  to  dip  in  water,  then,  is  it  not  likely  that 
it  was  used  in  this  sense  by  Christ,  in  the  commission  ?  Does 
not  the  etymology  of  the  word,  and  its  prevailing  sense,  and 
the  frequent  use  of  immersion  among  the  Jews,  favour  this 
supposition  ?  It  must  be  insisted  on,  that  the  language  of  a 
speaker  or  writer,  is  not  ambiguous,  because  the  words  which 
he  uses  have  sometimes  different  senses,  from  those  in  which 
he  designs  to  employ  them.  Every  speaker,  or  writer,  who 
intends  to  be  understood,  will  always  guard  against  the  use  of 
a  word,  if  there  is  not,  at  least,  sufficient  preponderating  pro- 
bability, from  the  connexion  and  circumstances  in  which  he 
uses  it  to  point  out  to  an  honest  uncaptious  mind,  the  sense 
which  he  intends.  Did  Christ  intend  to  be  understood  ?  Surely 
he  did.  Let  then  every  disciple  weigh  the  probabilities,  whe- 
ther he  intended  by  this  word,  that  which  Dr.  W.  says  it  cer- 
tainly does  mean,  namely,  to  immerse,  or  dip  in  water,  and  if 
the  probability  is  in  favour  of  this  sense,  then  he  may  he  as- 
sured, that  Christ  meant  so,  and  ought  to  practise  accord- 
ingly. 

Dr.  W,  says,  "  Bxvrt^M  signifies  to  wash,  and  to  wash  in 
different  ways."  I  do  not  deny,  that  there  are  many  sen- 
tences, in  which  the  sense  to  wash,  is  sufficiently  expressive 
of  the  meaning  of  this  word,  to  be  a  suitable  rendering  for  it, 
but  I  deny  it  is  the  proper  sense  of  it.  Every  one,  who  is 
accustomed  to  translate  from  another  language,  knows  that 
his  mind  is  prone  to  seek  out,  and  fix  upon,  some  one  sense  to 
every  word,  and  to  explain  all  special  uses  of  it  as  modifica- 
tions of  this  general  sense,  arising  from  the  peculiar  circum- 
stances of  its  use  in  those  cases.  A  word  becomes  in  reality, 
two  words,  if  it  has  two  leading  senses,  that  are  independent 
of  each  other;  thus,  to  lie,  in  English,  has  two  independent 
leading  senses,  but  it  constitutes  in  each  of  these  senses  a  dis- 
tinct word.  But  no  one,  I  believe,  will  affirm  that  there  are 
two  Greek  verbs,  /3#7rTi£#,  one  meaning  to  immerse,  and  the 
other  to  wash.  These  senses  are  not,  therefore,  independent 
of  each  other,  and  one  of  them  must  be  the  principal  sense  of 
the  verb,  and  the  other  a  subordinate  sense,  since  no  one  pre- 
tends that  there  is  a  more  general  sense  than  either,  from 
which  they  are  both  derived. 


80  The  common  Signification  of  Baptize. 

Now,  I  deny,  that  to  wash,  is  the  principal  leading  sense  of 
the  verb  j8«tt/{».  If  the  general  sense  attached  to  it  be  to 
immerse,  to  dip,  then  all  the  peculiar  modifications  will  be 
found  to  follow  from  this  sense  naturally,  and  in  a  way,  easily 
to  be  accounted  for;  but  they  cannot  be  derived  from  the 
sense  to  wash.  Who  can  make  sense  of  our  Saviour's  words, 
Luke,  xii.  50.,  if  thus  rendered;  "  I  have  a  washing  to  be 
washed  with."  The  mind  revolts  at  the  idea  of  interpreting 
this  figurative  language  of  our  Saviour,  with  a  reference  to 
wash,  as  the  general  literal  sense  of  the  verb;  but,  how  ex- 
pressive is  the  rendering  of  Dr.  Campbell,  "  I  have  an  immer- 
sion to  undergo  !"  Many  other  sentences  of  the  same  kind 
might  be  produced.  The  following  shall  be  given  from  Jus- 
tin's dialogue  with  Trypho,  part  2.  p.  327.  "  Christ  has 
redeemed  US,  fiifixzi-Tirfifvovs  rxn  Bet£VTctjecis  a  ptt^Ttctts,  sub- 
mersos  gravissimis  peccatis,  immersed  in  most  heavy  sins." 
Who  could  make  sense  of  this  passage,  if  he  had  it  in  his 
mind,  that  to  wash  instead  of  to  immerse,  is  the  sense  of  the 
verb  ?  If  among  the  various  modifications  of  sense  which 
this  word  may  receive  from  peculiar  circumstances,  it  may 
mean  '■'  to  wash  in  different  ways."  One  of  these  ways  un- 
questionably is,  by  immersion;  and  if  the  commission  were 
read,  "  Go  teach  all  nations,  washing  them,  &c,"  to  me  it 
appears  there  would  be  sufficient  reason  for  supposing  this 
mode  of  washing  to  have  been  intended.  But  Dr.  W.  says, 
14  The  most  common  mode  of  ceremonial  purification  among 
the  Jews,  was,  "  the  sprinkling  of  consecrated  water."  But, 
without  waiting  to  dispute  the  comparative  frequency  of  this 
mode,  will  Dr.  W.  affirm  that  in  the  numerous  instances  in 
which  unclean  things  were  required  to  be  washed,  they  were 
washed  for  the  most  part,  or  even  frequently,  or  even  in  any 
case,  by  the  sprinkling  of  consecrated  water  ?  •  Will  Dr.  W. 
affirm,  that  any  Jewish  priest,  ever  purified,  by  the  sprinkling 
of  consecrated  water,  any  unclean  thing,  which  Moses  had 
commanded  to  be  put  into,  or  dipped  in  water,  as  expressed 
by  the  verb  Bxtttv  ?  Alas;  the  disciples  of  Christ  are  in  this 
particular,  less  observant  of  their  Master's  words,  than  were 
the  disciples  of  Moses. 

But  what  proof  is  there,  that  BxTtr^a  in  the  commission, 
may  signify  so  imperfect  and  partial  a  washing,  as  our  bre- 
thren practise.  They  do  not  wash  the  whole  body,  but  the 
face  only,  and,,  for  what  reason  they  fix  upon  this  part  of  the 


The  common  Signification  of  Baptize.  8  i 

body,  I  cannot  tell,  since  I  know  not  that  any  of  the  sprink- 
lings of  consecrated  water,  among  the  Jews,  were  made  upon 
the  face,  and  certain  I  am,  there  is  no  command,  or  example, 
or  even  hint,  or  suggestion,  in  the  NewTestament,  for  wash- 
ing, or  baptizing  the  face.  Further,  this  very  partial  wash- 
ing is  also  very  imperfectly  done,  since  it  often  consists  in 
sprinkling  on  the  face  a  few  drops  of  water,  and  that  not  con- 
secrated, but  common  water.  I  ask,  what  reason  is  there  to 
believe,  that,  when  our  Saviour  commanded  that  his  disciples 
should  be  baptized,  he  meant  only,  that  they  should  receive 
this  very  imperfect  and  partial  washing  by  sprinkling.  Dr.  W.'s 
reasons  consist  in  remarks  made  upon  the  use  of  the  noun 
PttstTHrpts,  in  two  passages  of  scripture;  Heb.  ix.  10.,  Mark, 
vii.  4.  But  fixzrTHrpos  is  not  the  word  used  in  the  commis- 
sion. We  might  say,  using  the  phraseology  of  Dr.  W.,  there 
are  many  reasons  for  supposing  that  pxzrrt7ft.os,  being  a  deri- 
vative from  /3#7tt<£»,  has  a  less  definite,  and  less  forcible  sense. 
Why  may  we  not,  with  an  assertion  of  this  kind,  silence  all 
his  argument,  since  it  depends  entirely  upon  the  use  of  this 
derivative  fieczTTtcrpos  ?  But  let  us  not  resort  to  this  expedient, 
for,  I  apprehend,  that  though  we  should  affirm  many  such 
reasons  exist,  we  should  be  put  to  it,  if  called  upon  to  produce 
them.  It  is  true,  that  Schleusner,  though  he  renders  fixnrt&i 
to  immerse,  to  dip,  renders  ficrsrTtrpos  washing,  cleansing,  ab- 
lution; but,  we  are  not  to  infer  that  such  a  washing,  or  ablu- 
tion is  properly  meant  by  this  word,  as  does  not  convey  the 
idea  of  immersion  which  prevails  in  the  primitive.  It  should 
be  recollected,  that  dipping,  or  plunging,  may  be  for  the  pur- 
pose of  polluting,  as  well  as  of  purifying,  see  Job.  ix.  31. 
Whenever  either  /Zxznu,  or  /Zuznt^oi,  or  pefrrttrftos,  is  used  in 
such  circumstances,  as  show  evidently  that  the  immersion  is 
performed  for  the  purpose  of  purification,  then  the  general 
sense  of  the  word  may  be  considered  to  be  so  modified  by  these 
circumstances,  as  to  include  in  it  the  idea  of  purification. 
fixTTTtTftos,  always,  in  the  New  Testament,  is  so  used,  as  to 
include  this  idea,  and  this  accounts  for  the  fact,  that  this  lexi- 
cographer renders  the  noun  fletimTfitt,  washing,  ablution, 
while  the  noun  ^T^c-p,  which  is  used  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment, in  such  circumstances  as  do  not  imply  purification,  Matt. 
xx.  22.,  &c.  is  rendered  by  him  immersion.  As  ponrrt^e*  in 
several  instances,  is  rendered  wash,  so  £«*■*•«,  in  Job.  ix.  31. 
might  be  rendered  defile,  and  the  rendering  is  even  more  ex- 


82  The  common  Signification  of  Baptize. 

pressive  than  plunge,  of  the  prominent  idea  in  the  passage. 
But  however  prominent  the  idea  of  defilement  or  of  purification 
may  be,  it  is  still  an  accidental  idea,  dependent  upon  the  cir- 
cumstances and  connexion  in  which  the  word  is  used:  but  the 
idea,  which,  though  less  prominent  in  the  sentence  or  the  de- 
sign of  the  writer,  is  yet  essential  to  the  true  sense  of  the 
word,  is  immersion.  So,  purification  is  a  prominent  accidental 
idea  ot  fiawrtrfft,  where  it  occurs  in  the  New  Testament, 
yet  the  essential  idea  in  the  sense  of  the  word,  is  immersion ; 
and  this  cannot  be  denied  on  any  better  ground,  than  we  might 
deny  immersion  to  be  intended,  in  Job  ix.  31.*  because  de- 
filement is  the  prominent  idea. 

Stockius  renders  the  word  /3#9rT<<r^,  lotio,  ablutio,  baptis- 
mus;  (washing,  ablution,  baptism;)  yet,  in  explaining  further, 
he  says,  "  Generally,  and  according  to  the  force  of  the  word, 
it  denotes  immersionem  ac  intinctionem;  (immersion,  dip- 
ping.) Specially,  it  denotes,  first,  properly,  the  immersion, 
or  dipping  of  a  thing  into  water,  that  it  may  be  washed,  hence 
it  is  transferred  to  sacramental  baptism,  in  which,  formerly, 
the  person  to  be  baptized  was  immersed  into  water,  that  he 
might  be  washed  from  the  filth  of  sin,  and  received  into  the 
covenant  of  grace.  Second,  figuratively,  by  metonymy,  or 
metalepsis,  it  denotes  washing,  Mark.  vii.  4.  8.,  Heb.  ix.  10." 
If  the  judgment  of  this  lexicographer  be  taken,  ficarTtrp,**;,  in 
both  the  texts  from  which  Dr.  W.  argues,  is  used  in  a  special 
figurative  sense,  and  therefore  no  valid  argument  can  be 
drawn  from  them,  to  do  away  either  the  general  or  special 
proper  sense,  in  which  last  it  applies  to  the  ordinance  of  bap- 
tism. But  is  not  immersion  intended  even  in  these  two  texts? 
Dr.  Macknight  renders,  Heb.  ix.  10.  "  divers  immersions :" 
and  on  Mark  vii.  3.,  4.,  his  observations  (see  Harmony,  sec, 
64.)  are  important,  showing  both  the  frequency  and  manner 
of  Jewish  baptismal  purifications,  and  also  the  true  sense,  as 
I  conceive,  of  the  3d  verse  of  that  chapter.  "  The  law  of 
Moses  required  external  cleanness,  as  a  part  of  religion,  not, 
however,  for  its  own  sake,  but  to  signify  with  what  carefulness 
God's  servants  should  purify  their  minds  from  moral  pollutions. 
Accordingly,  these  duties  were  prescribed  by  Moses  in  such 
moderation,  as  was  fitted  to  promote  the  end  of  them.  But, 
in  process  of  time,  they  came  to  be  multiplied  prodigiously. 
For  the  ancient  doctors,  to  secure  the  observation  of  those 
precepts  that  were  really  of  divine  institution,  added  many 


The  common  Signification  of  Baptize*  83 

commandments  of  their  own  as  fences  unto  the  former;  and 
the  people,  to  show  their  zeal,  obeyed  them.     For  example, 
because  the  law,  Lev.  xv.  11.,  saith,  "  Whomsoever  he  touch- 
eth  that  hath  the  issue,  (and  hath  not  rinsed  his  hands  in  wa- 
ter,) he  shall  wash  his  clothes,  and  bathe  himself  in  water, 
and  be  unclean  until  the  even;"  the  people  were  ordered  to 
wash  their  hands  carefully,  and  to  bathe  themselves  immedi- 
ately on  their  return  from  places  of  public  concourse,  and 
before  they  sat  down  to  meat,  lest  by  touching  some  unclean 
person   in   the  crowd,  they  might  have  defiled  themselves. 
The  Pharisees,  therefore,  being  very  zealous  in  these  trifles, 
would  eat  at  no  time,  unless  they  washed  their  hands  with  the 
greatest  care;  and  when  they  came  from  the  market  place, 
they  would  not  sit  down  to  table,  till  they  had  first  bathed 
themselves.     From  this  source  came  that  endless  variety  of 
purifications  not  prescribed  in  the  law,  but  ordained  by  the 
elders,  such  as  the  washing  of  cups,  and  pots,  and  brazen  ves- 
sels, and  of  tables,  not  because  they  were  dirty,  but  from  a 
principle  of  religion,  or  rather,  of  superstition."     Calmet 
says,  Article  Baptism:  "  All  legal  pollutions  were  cleansed  by 
.baptism,  or  by  plunging  into  water.     Certain  diseases,  natu- 
ral to  men  and  worsen,  were  to  be  purified  by  bathing;"  Dr. 
Gill  has  shown,  in  his  notes  on  Mark  vii.  4.,  that  the  Jews 
did  use  immersion,  in  the  ceremonial  purification,  not  only  of 
cups,   pots,    brazen    vessels,  and  tables,    but   also   of  beds, 
couches,  pillows,  and  bolsters;  and  has  quoted  canons  in  which 
immersion  of  these  is  explicitly   enjoined.     The  argument, 
therefore,  that  "  to  suppose  that  beds  or  couches  were  im- 
mersed, would  be  unreasonable,"  is  an  argument  founded  on 
a  supposition,  that  is  contrary  to  demonstrated  fact.     Dr.  W. 
says,  "  Divers  washings  are  mentioned,  Heb.  ix.  10.     The 
original  is  diet<P$£ot$  /3*TT<(rp(j,  divers  baptisms.     These  were 
not  all  performed  in  one  way;  and  certainly  not  by  immersion. 
The  clivers  baptisms,  or  ablutions,  mentioned  Heb    ix.  10., 
doubtless,  included  all  the  different  ablutions,  or  ceremonial 
cleansings,  prescribed  in  the  Mosaic  law.     These  were  per- 
formed in  different  ways,  but  chiefly,  by  sprinkling  consecrat- 
ed water."     That  all  the  ceremonial  purifications  were  in- 
tended by  the  apostle  to  be  included  in  the  phrase  divers  bap- 
tisms, is  a  supposition  entirely  gratuitous.     His  words  are: — 
"  Which  stood  only  in  meats  and  drinks,  and  divers  baptisms, 
and  carnal  ordinances;"  or  according  to  the  translation  of 


84  The  Ritual  Signification  of  Baptize.    ' 

Macknight,  r  Divers  immersions  and  ordinances  concerning 
the  flesh."  The  carnal  ordinances  are  certainly  much  more 
comprehensive  in  signification,  than  the  divers  baptisms  or 
immersions,  and  include  all  the  ceremonies  for  the  purifica- 
tion of  the  flesh,  such  as  that  mentioned  in  verse  13  of  the 
chapter:  "  The  ashes  of  an  heifer  sprinkling  the  unclean, 
sanctifieth  to  the  purifying  of  the  flesh:"  that  is,  the  sprink- 
ling of  the  consecrated  water,  made  of  the  ashes  of  the  red 
heifer,  was  an  ordinance  for  the  purifying  of  the  flesh,  a  car- 
nal ordinance,  an  ordinance  concerning  the  flesh.  There  is, 
therefore,  no  ground  for  the  affirmation,  that  the  purifications 
which  were  performed  by  sprinkling  consecrated  water,  were 
"  doubtless  included"  in  the  divers  baptisms  mentioned  by  the 
Apostles.  But  it  is  said,  "  The  adjective  huVcps,  signi- 
fies different,  of  various  kinds,  dissimilar,  as  in  Rom.  xii.  6. 
But  when  the  Apostle  says,  in  Rom.  xii.,  6.;  "Having 
then,  gifts  differing  according  to  the  grace  given  us," 
did  he  mean  that  some  of  these  gifts  were  not  really  gifts, 
but  something  different  from  gifts  ?  Certainly,  he  meant  no 
such  thing:  but  as  the  context  clearly  shows,  he  meant  that 
they  were  all  truly  gifts,  but  given  for  different  purposes;  for 
prophecy,  for  ministry,  for  teaching,  for  exhortation,  &c.  In 
like  manner,  when  he  says  divers  baptisms,  or  immersions,  he 
means  that  they  are  all  really  baptisms  or  immersions,  how- 
ever they  may  differ  in  other  respects.  The  immersion  on 
divers  occasions,  for  divers  purposes,  of  divers  persons  and 
things,  as  of  priests  and  people,  sacrifices,  vessels,  &c.  con- 
stituted divers  immersions,  without  the  necessity  of  supposing 
that  some  of  those  immersions  were  performed  by  sprinkling. 
Had  the  words  been  $tct<p6£ots  pxtrirpots,  divers  sprinklings; 
would  Dr.  W.  have  argued  that  some  of  the  sprinklings  were 
performed  by  immersion  ? 

THE  RITUAL  SIGNIFICATION  OF  BAPTIZE. 

The  most  plausible  argument  ever  urged  in  favour  of  a  par- 
tial application  of  water,  for  baptism,  is  that  which  Dr.  W. 
thus  states,  p.  152.  But  even  if  it  were  the  case,  that  fixir- 
n^tt  always  signifies  to  dip,  or  immerse  all  over  in  water, 
when  applied  to  other  subjects;  it  would  by  no  means  certain- 
ly follow  that  it  has  this  signification,  when  applied  to  the 
Christian  rite  of  baptism.     There  may  be  sufficient  reasons, 


The  Ritual  Signification  of  Baptize.  85 


use,  should  not  be  performed  in  a  manner  exactly  in  conform- 
ity with  the  common  signification  of  that  word.  This  we  well 
know  is  the  case  with  the  word  by  which  the  other  Christian 
ordinance  is  denoted.  The  word  supper,  in  English,  and 
hiirw,  in  Greek,  have  a  very  different  sense,  when  applied  to 
that  institution,  from  what  they  have  in  ordinary  cases.  Eat- 
ing a  morsel  of  bread  does  not  constitute  a  supper,  a  princi- 
pal meal ;  although  this  is  the  common  signification  of  h ittw. 
But  in  this  religions  rite,  eating  a  small  morsel  of  bread  is 
called  a  supper,  1  Cor.  xi.  20.  And  the  apostle  charged  the 
Corinthians  with  abusing  the  ordinance,  because  they  made 
use  of  more  food,  than  the  design  of  the  ordinance  required. 
Now  if  the  word  which  denotes  one  Christian  rite,  has  a  sense 
so  widely  different  from  its  usual  sense;  why  may  it  not  be  so 
with  the  word  which  denotes  the  other  Christian  rite  ?  As 
hi7rtov,  in  reference  to  one  rite,  signifies,  not  a  usual  meal, 
but  only  a  very  small  quantity  of  bread ;  why  may  not  /3#7rr/- 
£»,  in  reference  to  the  other  rite,  signify  not  a  complete  dip- 
ping or  washing,  but  the  application  of  water  in  a  small  de- 
gree? This  would  present  the  two  institutions  in  the  same 
light." 

This  argument  is  provided  as  a  resort,  in  case  it  should  be 
proved  that  fictTTt^a  means  to  dip,  or  immerse  all  over  in  wa- 
ter. So  far,  therefore,  as  this  argument  is  concerned,  we  may, 
in  our  reply,  take  it  as  granted  to  us,  that  this  is  the  common 
signification  of  the  word,  and  that  both  in  the  commission 
and  every  where  else,  it  may  be  rendered  immerse,  with  as 
much  propriety  as  ht-rvov  is  rendered  supper  in  1  Cor.  xi.  20. 

We  should  here  consider  the  fact,  that  there  is  but  a  single 
instance  of  the  use  of  ^unvot,  in  which  it  is  supposed  to  have 
this  peculiar  signification,  namely,  1  Cor.  xi.  20.  The  in- 
stances are  exceedingly  numerous  in  which  other  words  are 
used  with  reference  to  religious  rites,  and  even  fottrw  is  re- 
peatedly used  with  reference  to  the  paschal  supper.  In  all 
these  instances  it  is  an  invariable  rule,  that  words  when  ap- 
plied to  religious  rites  have  the  same  signification  as  in  other 
cases,  and  are  subject  to  the  same  rules  of  interpretation.  If 
^tiTTfo*  in  1  Cor.  xi.  20.,  is  an  exception,  it  is  a  solitary  excep- 
tion. It  is  certainly  the  part  of  true  criticism,  in  determining 
the  meaning  of /3*wt<£#,  to  follow  the  general  rule,  rather  than 
the  single  exception.  Besides,  we  have  frequent  use  of  fixtr- 
ttt  with  reference  to  religious  rites.     See  the  examples  before 

m 


86  The  Ritual  Signification  of  Bapiize. 

quoted  from  the  LXX.  The  Jewish  priests  seem  never  to 
have  thought,  that  when  Moses  enjoined  dipping  in  religious 
rites,  he  meant  a  diminutive  dipping,  or  one  that  might  be 
performed  by  sprinkling,  and  no  one  has  suggested,  that  these 
priests  mistook  the  meaning  of  their  lawgiver.  Is  it  not  in- 
finitely more  probable  that  fieczrrt^oi  follows  peca-ru,  in  obeying 
the  general  rule,  than  that  it  follows  a  very  different  word  in 
a  solitary  deviation  from  all  rule  and  analogy  ? 

If  upon  a  single  instance,  we  should  establish  it  as  a  rule, 
that  words,  when  applied  to  a  religious  rite,  may  have  a  mean- 
ing which  they  obtain  no  where  else,  who  will  limit  the  ap- 
plication of  this  rule,  and  tell  us,  how  many  of  the  words  which 
relate  to  a  religious  rite,  have  an  extraordinary  meaning,  or 
how  widely  their  meaning  differs  from  that  which  they  obtain 
elsewhere  ?  Perhaps  the  words  erSia,  and  vrtw,  although  they 
mean  every  where  else  to  eat  and  to  drink,  do,  when  applied 
to  a  religious  rite,  mean  only  to  handle  and  to  look  upon.  Who 
will  determine  for  us  ?  Has  the  legislator  of  the  church  com- 
mitted to  any  one  a  lexicon  of  ritual  terms,  by  which  his  sim- 
ple hearted  disciples  may  find  out  what  he  meant  ?  Or  has 
he  given  to  any  persons  on  earth,  an  authority  to  decree  what 
ceremonies  they  may  think  proper,  by  assigning  to  all  the 
ritual  terms  of  scripture  what  sense  they  please  ?  That  the 
terms  used  in  reference  to  religious  rites  may  sometimes  have 
a  figurative  rather  than  the  literal  meaning,  sometimes  a  se- 
condary sense  rather  than  the  primary,  every  one  will  admit: 
but  this  is  what  happens  in  all  other  speaking  or  writing,  and 
the  same  rule  of  criticism  is  to  be  applied  in  this  as  in  other 
cases:  namely,  to  prefer  the  literal  and  primary  signification, 
if  nothing  forbids.  Thus  we  understand  the  word  is,  in  the 
phrase  u  this  is  my  body,"  to  have  the  sense  of  represents: 
because  the  literal  primary  signification  would  makethe  sense 
absurd  and  false:  but  the  word  has  the  same  sense  when  not 
applied  to  a  religious  rite,  as  in  the  phrase, "  The  field  is  the 
world,1'  For  the  same  reason,  the  phrase,  "  As  often  as  ye 
drink  this  cup,"  is  to  be  interpreted  according  to  a  common 
figure  of  speech, '"  As  often  as  ye  drink  of  the  liquor  contain- 
ed in  this  cup."  But  the  same  literal  sense  of  the  terms,  and 
the  same  rules  of  figurative  interpretation  are  found  here,  as 
in  all  other  cases. 

It  deserves  to  be  noticed  further,  that  /3*?rnf#,  and  ht  m*rr 
are  differently  circumstanced  in  their  application  to  the  two 


The  Ritual  Signification  of  Baptize.  87 

ordinances:  one  of  them  is  found  in  the  words  of  Christ's  com- 
mand; the  other  is  not,  but  is,  at  most,  only  a  name  which 
the  ordinance  has  received.  Our  conduct,  in  obeying  the 
commands  of  Christ,  i3  to  be  regulated,  not  by  the  names 
which  his  institutions  may  receive,  but  by  the  words  of  his 
commands.  We  conceive  that  believers  are  said  in  scripture 
to  ,be  buried  in  baptism,  at  least,  twice  as  often  as  the  eucha- 
rist  is  called  a  supper :  baptism  may,  therefore,  be  called  a 
burial,  yet  no  one  would  infer  hence,  that  the  body  should  be 
left  for  a  long  time  under  water,  as  in  a  real  interment.  Bap- 
tisms represent  a  real  burial,  in  which  the  body  of  Christ 
continued  three  days  in  the  grave.  The  eucharist  represents 
the  free  and  abundant  communion,  in  which  the  Lord  sups 
with  his  people,  Rev.  iii.  20.,  in  which  the  great  supper  is 
spread,  Luke  xiv.  16,  and  which  will  be  perfected  at  the 
marriage  supper  of  the  Lamb,  Rev.  xix.  9.  Yet  Christ  did 
not  say,  "Go  teach  all  nations  burying  them,"  nor,  "  Take  a 
supper  in  remembrance  of  me."  His  command  in  the  latter 
case  is,  eat  this  bread,  and  drink  this  cup,  and  he  did  not  in- 
stitute this  ordinance  as  a  supper,  but  after  supper.  Now  if 
the  command  is  eat,  drink,  could  this  command  be  obeyed 
any  otherwise  than  by  eating  and  drinking  ?  Would  it  suf- 
fice only  to  apply  the  bread  and  cup  to  the  lips  ?  In  like 
manner,  when  Christ  said,  u  Go,  teach  all  nations  immersing 
them,"  can  the  command  be  obeyed  any  otherwise  than  by 
performing  a  real  immersion  *  In  the  eucharist,  he  com- 
manded to  eat  bread,  and  drink  wine,  but  not  to  take  a  full 
meal;  and  we  know  from  the  circumstance  that  this  ordinance 
was  instituted  immediately  after  the  disciples  had  taken  a  full 
meal,  that  a  full  meal  was  not  intended.  The  Corinthians, 
when  they  converted  this  ordinance  into  a  full  meal,  did  truly 
eat  and  drink,  yet  they  did  not  fulfil  the  command  more  strictly 
and  literally  than  we  do;  while  on  the  other  hand,  they  depart- 
ed from  the  example  and  manifest  intention  of  Christ,  and 
were  censured  for  so  doing  by  the  Apostle.  If  we  do  not 
literally  and  fully  obey  the  divine  command,  when  we  restrict 
ourselves  in  this  ordinance  to  a  morsel  of  bread,  and  a  few 
drops  of  wine,  we  do  wrong  so  to  restrict  ourselves,  and  as 
you  have  observed  in  another  case,  we  ought  rather  to  undo 
the  wrong  than  establish  it  as  a  precedent. 

What  gives  the  argument  we  are  considering  much  greater 
plausibility,  than  it  would  otherwise  possess,  is  the  fact  that 


88  The  Ritual  Signification  of  Baptize. 

the  name,  the  Lord's  Supper,  has  become  the  name  generally 
applied  to  this  ordinance,  both  in  common  discourse  and  theo- 
logical writing,  just  as  baptism  is  to  the  other  ordinance. 
However  freely  this  name  may  be  tolerated  in  common  dis- 
course, it  should  be  remembered,  when  important  arguments 
are  concerned,  that  it  is  not  a  name  commonly  used  in  Scrip- 
ture. We  every  where  meet  with  the  terms,  baptism  and 
baptize,  as  applied  to  one  ordinance,  but  in  all  the  word  of 
God,  there  is  only  a  single  instance,  in  which  the  term  supper 
is  supposed  to  be  applied  to  the  other,  and  concerning  this 
solitary  instance,  we  have  the  following  remark  of  Parkhurst, 
under  the  word  hivrvov :  "  Kyg«**ov  fonrw,  the  Lord's  Sup- 
per, occurs  in  1  Cor.  xi.  20.  Jt  appears,  from  this  and  the 
following  verses,  that  the  appellation  does  not  strictly  mean 
the  eucharist,  but  a  supper  in  imitation  of  that  of  which  our 
Lord  partook,  when  he  instituted  the  eucharist.  For  this 
remark  I  am  indebted  to  Dr.  Bell."  Dr.  Guyse  says  on  this 
verse:  "  I  see  no  reason  to  suppose,  as  many  do,  that  the 
Apostle  here  refers  to  their  Love  Feasts."  Schoettgen,  in 
his  enlargement  of  Pasor's  Lexicon,  Article  ATAXIA  I,  [Love 
feasts,]  says;  "  So  were  called  those  feasts,  which  were  cele- 
brated by  Christians  either  before  or  after  the  use  of  the  holy 
communion.  See  1  Cor.  xi.  20,  21.  Joach.  Hildebrandi 
Antiq.  p.  176.  Schurzfleischii  diss.  86.  de  veteri  agaparum 
ritu.,J  See  also  Calmet's  dictionary,  article  AGAPJE,  at 
the  close  of  which  article  [Taylor's  edition,)  we  have  the  fol- 
lowing sentence:  "  However,  we  must,  at  any  rate,  vindicate 
the  Corinthians  from  that  gross  profanatiou  of  the  eucharist, 
with  which,  from  our  translation,  or  rather  from  our  common 
acceptation  of  the  phrase  '  Lord's  Supper,'  they  have  been 
reproached."  It  seems,  therefore,  that  in  the  judgment  of 
many  eminent  men,  we  have  not  a  single  instance  in  scripture, 
in  which  the  eucharist  is  called  the  Lord's  supper.  Their 
opinion,  if  correct,,  sweeps  away  at  once,  the  whole  founda- 
tion on  which  this  plausible  argument  rests. 

1  think,  it  deserves  to  be  inquired  whether  the  Apostle,  in 
this  verse,  intended  Kv^taxov  htzrvov  for  the  name  of  any  insti- 
tution either  divine  or  human.  Had  he  so  intended,  it  would 
have  been  natural  to  prefix  the  definite  article  which  he  has 
not  done.  Middleton  says,  4<  The  article  may  here  be  omit- 
ted by  the  same  license  by  which  it  is  so  frequently  wanting 
before  Jtvg/«s:  in  the  same  maimer  as  national  appellations 


Circumstantial  Evidence.  89 

partake  of  the  license  which  is  allowed  to  proper  names." 
This  is,  perhaps,  one  of  the  instances  meant  by  professor 
Stewart,  (Translation  of  Winer's  Greek  Grammar,  p.  59.) 
in  which  he  says,  Middleton  has  "  cut  the  knot  without  unty- 
ing it."  The  translation  of  Wakefield  expresses  all  that  is  in 
the  original:  "  So  then,  when  ye  meet  together,  it  is  not  to 
eat  a  supper  of  the  Lord."  The  Corinthians  took  a.  full  mealy 
a  real  supper,  even  to  excess,  both  in  eating  and  drinking. 
The  Apostle  denies  that  this  was  a  supper  of  the  Lord.  But 
he  no  where  affirms  that  "  the  eating  of  a  small  morsel,  is  a 
supper,"  as  Dr.  W.  has  stated  in  the  premises  of  his  argu- 
ment. Middleton  has  made  the  following  quotation  from 
Michaelis:  "  In  the  first  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians,  we  find 
the  plainest  indications  that  they  celebrated  Sunday.  They 
assembled  on  the  first  day  of  the  week,  (x<*t#  ptctv  rct8fietT#r:) 
and  the  expression  xv£tx>cof  hi-a-w,  1  Cor.  xi.  20.  may  be 
translated  as  in  the  Syriac  version,  ••  a  meal  which  is  proper 
for  the  Lord's  day,  or  a  Sunday  meal."  But  it  is  of  no  im- 
portance to  our  present  argument,  whether  the  phrase,  "  it  is 
not  to  eat  a  supper  of  the  Lord,"  means,  it  is  not  to  eat  a  feast 
which  the  Lord  has  instituted,  or  it  is  not  to  eat  a  feast  which 
the  Lord  can  approve  ;  or,  it  is  not  to  eat  a  feast  proper  for 
the  Lord's  day.  According  to  any  of  these  interpretations, 
the  phrase  has  no  definite  reference  to  an  institution  either 
human  or  divine. 

CIRCUMSTANTIAL  EVIDENCE. 

Having  ascertained,  that  according  to  fair  rules  of  scrip- 
ture interpretation,  fiecxri^et  means  to  immerse,  when  applied 
to  the  Christian  ordinance;  we  have  before  us,  in  the  com- 
mission, a  positive  command  for  immersion;  and  in  the  scrip- 
ture history  positive  proof  that  believers  were  anciently  im- 
mersed. Every  declaration,  that  any  were  baptized,  is  proof 
as  direct  and  positive  as  language  can  make  it,  that  they  were 
immersed.  Therefore,  if  Dr.  W.  could  succeed  in  showing, 
that  the  circumstances,  which  attend  the  several  instances  of 
baptism  recorded  in  the  New  Testament,  do  not  prove  that 
immersion  is  the  only  proper  mode,  he  would  only  take  away 
from  us  the  circumstantial  proof,  leaving  us  in  full  possession  of 
that  which  is  positive.  If,  even  all  the  circumstances  could 
be  shown  to  be  against  the  probability  of  these  persons  having 

h  2 


90  Circumstantial  Evidence. 

been  immersed,  they  would  operate  against  the  credibility  of 
the  history,  but  would  not  disprove  that  the  facts  are  so  stated. 
But,  upon  due  examination,  it  will  be  found,  that  the  circum- 
stantial proof  and  the  positive  are  on  the  same  side.  In  the 
examination  of  the  circumstantial  evidence,  I  shall  be  more 
brief,  as  it  is  of  less  importance. 

"  John  also  was  baptizing  in  Enon,  near  to  Salim,  because 
there  was  much  water  there."  John  iii.  23.  This  circum- 
stance is  manifestly  favourable  to  immersion.  To  evade  its 
force,  the  'much  water'  is  supposed  by  Dr.  W.  to  have  been 
necessary  for  the  accommodation  of  the  crowd  that  attended 
his  ministry,  and  not  for  the  purpose  of  baptizing,  but  this  is  not 
the  sense  which  naturally  strikes  the  mind  on  reading  the  pas- 
sage. The  suggestion  that  vlxrec  ^©aa*  means  i  many  springs 
er  streams  of  water,'  I  did  not  expect  from  Dr.  W.  See  Dr. 
Doddridge's  note  on  the  place. 

That  John  baptized  in  Jordan,  Mat.  iii.  6,  is  another  cir- 
cumstance favourable  to  immersion.  With  this  agrees  the 
statement,  that  both  the  candidate  and  the  administrator  went 
down  into  the  water  for  the  performing  of  this  duty,  and  when 
it  had  been  performed,  came  up  out  of  the  water,  Acts  viii. 
38,  39.  The  translations  in,  into,  out  of,  are  in  these  con- 
nexions unquestionably  correct,  according  to  the  usus  loquen- 
di;  and  according  to  the  same  rule,  Mat.  iii.  11,  should  be 
rendered,  '  I  indeed  baptize  you  in  water,  &c.'  See  Dr. 
Campbell's  note.  If  4to  baptize  in  Jordan,'  and  '  to  baptize 
in  water,'  mean  that  the  baptized  were  put  in  the  water  of 
the  river,  they  furnish  positive  proof  of  immersion.  If  they 
mean  that  the  baptizer  and  the  baptized  stood  in  the  river, 
(and  the  first  of  the  phrases  may  mean  nothing  more,)  they 
contain  only  circumstantial  proof.  *  To  go  down  into  the 
water,'  and  «  to  come  up  out  of  the  water,'  do  not  express  the 
act  of  immersion,  but  preparatory  and  consequent  acts,  and 
are  therefore  only  circumstantial  proof;  but  it  is  circumstan- 
tial proof  exceedingly  strong,  that  the  administrator  and  the 
subjects  should  go  down  into  the  water  or  stand  in  the  river 
for  the  performance  of  the  rite.  The  preposition  ex,  out  of, 
is  used  to  express  the  coming  forth  of  Philip  and  the  Eunuch 
from  the  water  after  baptism,  but  that  which  is  used  in  the 
case  of  the  Saviour,  is  not  tx  but  *«••.  Dr.  W.  has  laid  hold 
of  this  fact,  and  says,  (which  I  am  willing  to  grant,)  that  this 
preposition  generally  signifies  from.     After  having  been  im- 


Circumstantial  Evidence.  91 

mersed,  Jesus  1,  emerged  from  the  water  in  which  he  had 
been  baptized  ;  2,  and  then  came  up  out  of  the  water  into 
which  he  had  gone  down ;  3,  and  lastly,  departed  from  the 
river  to  which  he  had  come.  If  the  phrase  <*»gy3»  a-xt  rev 
v&xToq,  means  the  first  of  these,  as  Dr.  Campbell  seems  to 
have  thought,  it  affords  positive  proof  of  immersion  ;  if  it 
means  the  second,  as  was  perhaps  the  opinion  of  our  transla* 
tors,  it  contains  exceedingly  strong  circumstantial  proof  to 
the  same  effect ;  if  it  means  the  third,  as  Dr.  W.  thinks,  the 
proof  is  less  strong,  but  it  is  certainly  still  favourable  to  im- 
mersion. Why  on  the  supposition  of  any  other  mode  than 
immersion  did  they  go  "  into  the  river  where  the  water  was  a 
few  inches  deep,"  or  "  to  the  edge  of  the  river,"  or,  I  may 
add,  even  in  sight  of  it  ?  Do  those  who  practise  sprinkling,  go 
to  rivers  ?  If  much  water  was  necessary  for  the  multitude, 
yet  why  go  to  the  river  for  baptism  ?  We  might  here  by  way 
of  retort,  ask,  should  we  expect  to  hear  of  repairing  to  rivers 
for  baptism  in  a  history  of  Padobaptist  Missions  ? 

On  the  case  of  the  Ethiopian  Eunuch,  the  Dr.  observes, 
M  that  if  going  down  into  the  water  proves  that  he  was 
wholly  immersed,  it  proves  the  same  of  Philip;"  but  this  is  a 
mutilated  account  of  the  matter,  for  it  is  said,  that  "  they  went 
down  both  of  them  into  the  water,  and  he  baptized  him ;  that  is, 
one  of  them  immersed  the  other.  Was  there  no  immersion 
then,  on  that  occasion  ?  If  not,  by  what  words  could  a  Greek 
writer  describe  such  an  action  ;  or  cannot  that  copious  lan- 
guage express  this  action  at  all,  even  when  it  describes  a 
combination  of  the  strongest  circumstances,  and  subjoins 
thereto  an  express  declaration  ?  See  Dr.  Doddridge's  note 
on  this  place. 

In  reference  to  the  case  of  the  Jailer,  it  is  abundantly  suf- 
ficient for  us,  simply  to  keep  in  mind,  that  Philippi  was  situ- 
ated by  a  river  side,  and  that  it  was  easy  to  baptize  in  the 
night,  and  safer,  under  existing  circumstances,  to  attend  to  it 
in  the  night  than  in  the  day  time.  The  historian  affirms  that 
the  Jailer  was  baptized,  i.  e.  immersed,  and  there  is  certainly 
no  circumstance  mentioned  that  implies  an  impossibility  of 
immersion.  On  the  contrary,  it  is  a  circumstance  unfavour- 
able to  any  other  supposition,  that  the  baptism  was  performed 
out  of  the  house,  for  it  is  said  expressly,  that  after  having  been 
baptized,  "he  brought  them  into  his  house."  This  circum- 
stance will  have  still  more  weight,  if  we  suppose  that  when 


92  Circumstantial  Evidence. 

"  they  preached  the  word  of  the  Lord  to  him  and  to  all  that 
were  in  his  house,"  they  were  assembled  in  the  house,  since 
in  that  case  it  will  appear  that  they  went  out  of  the  house  for 
the  purpose  of  performing  the  baptism.  Dr.  W.  says,  that  at 
the  time  of  preaching  to  the  household,  "  they  were  clearly 
not  out  of  the  limits  of  the  prison,"  but  for  the  proof  of  this 
fact,  (to  use  the  words  with  which  he  concludes  his  para- 
graph,) "  I  would  merely  ask  what  evidence  he  finds  of  this 
in  the  New  Testament  ?"     We  affirm,  that  there  was  a  river 
near,  and  have  Scripture  proof,  see  ver.  13,  of  the  chapter  ; 
but  although  it  is  usual  in  eastern  countries  to  have  tanks  of 
water  in  their  prison  yards,  as  well  as  in  the  yards  and  gar- 
dens of  their  private  houses,  (see  Judson's  sermon  on  bap- 
tism preached  at  Calcutta,)  we  do  not  affirm  that  the  prison 
at  Philippi  may  not  have  been  an  exception,  and  we  have  not 
the  scripture  evidence  Dr.  W.  calls  for  on  this  point,  unless  he 
will  allow  us  the  privilege  used  by  himself  on   another  occa- 
sion, p.  98,  99,  of  urging  the  silence  of  scripture  for  proof. 
The  remarks,  p.  156,  on  the  baptism  of  the  three  thousand, 
remind  me  of  the  statements  which  some  have  made  concern- 
ing the  river  Jordan.     It  has  been  affirmed,  that  it  was  a 
mere  rivulet,  and  that  it  was  impracticable  to  immerse  a  per- 
son in  it !     Can  any  one,  who  reflects  a  moment  on  it,  sup- 
pose, that  a  city  so  populous  and  of  such  consequence  as  Jeru- 
salem was,  should  be  so  destitute  of  water  as  the  Dr.  repre- 
sents it?  He  ought  to  have  borne  in  mind,  that  Jerusalem 
contained  a  very  great  multitude  of  people  beside  its  own  in- 
habitants at  the  time  referred  to,  and,  according  to  him,  they 
needed  much  water  at  all  events.  Men  forget  to  be  consistent 
oftimes,  when  supporting  a  favourite  hypothesis.     "  It  was 
about  the  twentieth  of  March,"  he  informs  us,  "  and  there 
was  no  rain  in  Jerusalem  at  that  season."    This  is  a  mistake, 
for  the  twentieth  of  March  was  about  the  time  of  the  latter  rain 
in  Judea.     To  do  justice  to  Dr,  W.,  we  must  suppose  this  a 
typographical  error.     The  feast  of  Pentecost  corresponding 
to  our  Whitsuntide,  happened  near  the  last  of  May.  But  even 
at  this  season  an  absolute  scarcity  of  water  at  Jerusalem  can- 
not be  supposed,  since  all  the  tribes  of  Israel  were  required 
to  assemble  there  annually  for  the  celebration  of  this  feast. 
Dr.  Macknight,  speaking  of  the  six  water-pots,   mentioned 
John  ii.  6,   says,  see  Harmony,  sec.   XIX.     "  They  were 
placed  there  some  of  them  for  the  cleansing  of  cups  and  tables, 


Circumstantial  Evidence.  93 

and  others  for  such  purifications  as  required  the  immersion 
of  the  whole  body.  They  were  therefore  of  great  capacity." 
If  in  Cana,  a  remote  village  of  Galilee,  a  poor  family  not  able 
to  furnish  a  marriage  feast  with  wine,  were  thus  provided 
with  the  means  necessary  for  ceremonial  purification  by  im- 
mersion, how  abundant  must  have  been  the  provision  for  this 
purpose  in  the  city  of  Jerusalem,  the  centre  of  all  their  cere- 
monial worship  ;  and  this  provision  was  necessary  not  for  the 
inhabitants  of  the  city  only,  but  also  for  the  immense  crowds 
who  attended  their  religious  festivals,  and  who  on  these  occa- 
sions must  have  had  access  to  such  places  of  purification. 
"The  brook  Kidron,"  says  Dr.  W.,  M  was  dry." — <I  would 
merely  ask  what  evidence  he  finds  of  this  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment ?' — He  says,  further,  u  And  there  was  no  stream  or 
fountain  of  water  in  Jerusalem,  or  near  it,  except  the  pool  of 
Siloam  or  Siloah;  (also  called  Gihon,  2  Chron.  xxxii.  30,) 
which  is  a  fountain  of  water  not  far  from  the  southeast  cor- 
ner of  the  city,  at  the  foot  of  Mount  Zion  and  Moriah."  A 
reader  of  this  statemeut  should  consult  Calmet's  Dictionary, 
articles  Gihon  and  Siloam  ;  or  Dr.  Clarke,  on  2  Chron. 
xxxii.  30,  Isaiah  xxii.  9,  and  John  ix.  7  ;  also,  Fragment  No. 
66,  by  the  editor  of  Calmet's  Dictionary.*  See  moreover,  2 


*  Chateaubriand  visited  Jerusalem  about  twenty  years  ago. 
The  following  extracts  are  from  his  Travels,  pages  311,  312, 
353. — '«  Having  descended  Mount  Sion  on  the  east  side,  we 
came,  at  its  foot,  to  the  fountain  and  pool  of  Siloe,  where 
Christ  restored  sight  to  the  blind  man.  The  spring  issues 
from  a  rock,  and  runs  in  a  silent  stream. — The  pool,  or  ra- 
ther the  two  pools  of  the  same  name,  are  quite  close  to  the 
spring. — Here  you  also  find  a  village  called  Siloan.  At  the 
foot  of  this  village  is  another  fountain,  denominated  in  Scrip- 
ture Rogel.  Opposite  to  this  fountain  is  a  third,  which  re- 
ceives its  name  from  the  blessed  Virgin.  The  Virgin's  foun- 
tain mingles  its  stream  with  that  of  the  fountain  of  Siloe. 

"  We  have  now  nothing  left  of  the  primitive  architecture  of 
the  Jews  at  Jerusalem,  except  the  pool  of  Bethesda.  This 
is  still  to  be  seen  near  St.  Stephen's  gate,  and  it  bounded  the 
temple  on  the  north.  It  is  a  reservoir,  one  hundred  and  fifty 
feet  long,  and  forty  wide — The  pool  is  now  dry,  and  half 
filled  up. — On  the  west  side  may  also  be  seen,  two  arches, 


94  Circumstantial  Evidence. 

Chron.  xxxii.  4,  with  2  Kings  xviii.  17,  and  xx.  20  ;  Neh.  if. 
14,  and  iii.  15,  16,  and  John  v.  2,  and  ix.  7  ;  and  Dr.  Gill  on 
Acts  ii.  41.  Whatever  places  of  bathing  and  ceremonial 
purification  by  immersion  were  open  to  the  immense  multi- 
tudes from  every  nation  under  heaven,  assembled  on  this 
memorable  occasion,  were  of  course  accessible  to  the  Apos- 
tles and  their  converts  ;  for  they  had  such  favour  with  the 
people,  that  opposers  seem  to  have  been  struck  dumb.  As  to 
changes  of  raiment,  about  which  our  author  make  a  diffi- 
culty, they  certainly  needed  to  have  brought  these  with  them 
for  their  convenience  in  attending  upon  the  feast;  and  if  any 
were  by  chance  destitute,  those  warm  hearted  converts,  who 
called  none  of  the  things  which  they  possessed  their  own, 
would  certainly  have  been  ready  to  furnish  them.  In  seasons 
of  revivals  as  that  was,  people's  hearts  and  hands  were  open, 
and  trifles  would  not  hinder  them  from  obeying  their  Lord, 
and  following  his  example,  as  they  appear  to  have  been  in 
good  earnest.  They  would  not  stand  long  to  reason  and  cavil 
about  immersion,  as  cold  critics  do  ;  but  in  the  ardour  of 
their  love,  would  submit,  without  delay,  to  every  divine  insti- 
tution. But  there  is  another  difficulty,  we  are  told,  more 
serious  still.  How  could  so  many  be  immersed  in  so  short  a 
time  ?  This  formidable  mountain  is  soon  removed.  I  would 
ask  then,  how  much  longer  would  it  take  to  immerse  a  per- 
son, than  to  sprinkle  him  ?  The  difference,  every  thing  else 
being  equal,  would  be  very  trifling.  There  is  no  necessity  of 
supposing  that  all  the  converts  were  baptized  by  the  Apos- 

which  probably  led  to  an  aqueduct,  that  carried  the  water  into 
the  interior  of  the  temple." 

The  dimensions  of  the  pool  of  Bethesda,  as  given  by  Maun- 
drell,  are  120  paces  long,  40  broad,  and  8  deep.  According 
to  the  dimensions  as  given  by  Chateaubriand,  it  measures 
380  feet  around,  so  that  80  administrators  of  baptism  might 
stand  within  its  verge,  4  feet  from  each  other,  and  be  en- 
gaged in  baptizing  at  the  same  moment:  and  each  one,  not 
having  40  to  baptize,  the  whole  3000  might  have  been  bap- 
tized in  this  single  pool  in  less  than  one  hour.  But  there 
were  other  pools,  and  twelve  baptizing  places,  mentioned  by 
Dr.  Gill,  in  the  temple,  and,  no  doubt,  many  cisterns,  or 
tanks,  belonging  to  such  of  the  converts  as  dwelt  in  Jerusa- 
lem. 


Importance  of  the  Mode.  95 

ties.  The  seventy  Disciples,  whom  Jesus  had  commissioned 
to  preach  his  gospel,  were  in  all  probability  present,  and  the 
Apostles  might  readily  command  the  services  of  such  assist^ 
ants.  See  Acts  x.  48.  In  this  case  there  were  not  forty  to 
be  baptized  by  each  administrator,  including  the  Apostles. 

The  allusions  in  scripture  to  the  ordinance  of  baptism,  espe- 
cially those  in  Rom.  vi.  3,  4,  Col.  ii.  12,  contain,  in  my  opi- 
nion, notwithstanding  what  Dr.  W.  has  said,  circumstantial 
proof  in  favour  of  immersion  ;  but  as  we  are  in  no  need  of 
this  argument,  I  shall  not  follow  him  in  his  laboured  attempt 
to  set  it  aside.  As  he  admits  the  authority  of  Dr.  Doddridge 
to  have  weight,  p.  89,  I  would  refer  to  what  that  writer  has 
said  on  this  subject.  "  It  seems,"  says  Dr.  D.,  "  to  be  the 
part  of  candour  to  confess,  that  here  is  an  allusion  to  the 
manner  of  baptizing  by  immersion,  as  most  usual  in  these 
early  times."  Note  on  Rom.  vi.  3,  4;  see  also  Mack- 
night,  on  both  these  passages.  Dr.  W.  says,  p.  160,  "  After 
all,  it  will  be  seen,  that  there  is  no  small  difficulty  in  finding 
any  great  resemblance  between  a  man's  being  dipped  or 
plunged  in  water,  and  Christ's  being  laid  in  a  sepulchre, 
which  was  hewn  out  of  a  rock."  The  same  might  be  said 
with  respect  to  the  resembance  between  a  loaf  of  bread  and 
the  body  of  Christ.  A  well  executed  picture  of  the  crucifix- 
ion, such  as  may  be  seen  in  Catholic  chapels,  has  much  more 
resemblance  to  the  body  of  Christ,  than  is  furnished  by  a 
piece  of  bread  ;  yet  considering  all  the  ends  to  be  answered 
by  the  eucharist,  the  Divine  wisdom  has  determined  that  we 
should  keep  Christ's  death  in  memory,  not  by  looking  at  a 
crucifix,  but  by  the  eating  of  bread.  In  like  manner  some 
means  might  have  been  devised  for  representing  the  burial 
and  resurrection  of  Christ,  which  would  have  borne  a  nearer 
resemblance  thereto  than  immersion  in  water  does.  But 
when  we  consider  that  baptism  not  only  represents  the  burial 
and  resurrection  of  Christ,  but  also  our  fellowship  therewith, 
and  the  removal  or  washing  away  of  our  guilt  thereby,  nothing 
could  more  conveniently,  aptly,  and  instructively  accomplish 
all  these  ends  at  once. 

Dr.  Woods,  after  some  further  remarks,  comes  finally  to 
the  conclusion,  that  Christ  and  his  Apostles  left  the  mode  of 
baptism  undecided.  That  our  English  translators,  by  retain- 
ing a  Greek  word  instead  of  translating  it,  have  done  so,  we 
admit ;  but  that  the  sacred  writers  have  done  so,  we  shall  not 


96  Importance  of  the  Mode. 

soon  concede.  The  Greek  church  have  continued  to  im- 
merse from  the  earliest  times.  One  would  think  that  the 
Greeks  understood  their  own  language  better  than  strangers, 
and  that  in  a  controversy  between  them  and  men  of  other 
nations,  as  to  the  meaning  of  a  word  in  their  native  tongue, 
we  need  not  long  hesitate  whose  definition  to  prefer.  Indeed, 
as  already  stated,  a  number  of  the  most  learned  and  pious 
Psedobaptists  have  candidly  conceded  all  for  which  we  plead 
in  reference  to  the  import  of  the  language  of  scripture  on  this 
subject. 

Dr.  Woods  assumes,  p.  164,  that  we  rely  on  the  testimony 
of  Ecclesiastical  History  as  a  conclusive  argument  in  favour 
of  baptizing  by  immersion,  and  that,  therefore,  we  ought  to 
admit  the  same  testimony  in  favour  of  infant  baptism.  We 
can  inform  him,  that  in  reference  to  ecclesiastical  history, 
while  he  admits  it  to  be  a  valid  argument  in  favour  of  im- 
mersion, we  esteem  it  as  collateral  evidence  only ;  and  fur- 
ther, that  he  is  welcome  to  all  the  aid  which  the  history  of 
the  church  during  the  first  two  centuries,  will  afford  him  in 
support  of  infant  baptism. 

IMPORTANCE    OF   THE    MODE. 

"Baptism,  as  to  the  mode  of  it,"  we  are  told,  "  is  not  of 
any  essential  consequence,"  p.  164.  This  I  think  is  very 
dangerous  ground  to  go  upon.  He  who  is  now  indifferent  as 
to  the  mode,  may  become  indifferent  as  to  the  thing  itself, 
and  to  other  things  that  God  has  commanded,  and  who  can 
tell  where  his  indifference  will  end  ?  We,  my  brother,  have 
a  very  instructive  lesson  in  the  condition  of  the  Society  of 
Friends  in  this  vicinity  at  this  moment.  The  founders  and 
leaders  of  this  people  taught  them  that  baptism  and  the  Lord's 
supper  were  useless  things,  and  now  how  much  further  have 
they  gone!  The  result  seems  to  be,  that  the  vital  and  dis- 
tinguishing principles  of  Christianity,  total  depravity,  regene- 
ration, trinity,  atonement,  and  resurrection,  by  the  majority 
of  that  people,  are  either  totally  discarded,  or  fritted  away  into 
allegories.  The  same  thing  may  be  observed  of  the  whole 
tribes  of  Arians,  Socinians,  Universalisls,  &,c.  ;  they  all  in 
general  hold,  what  have  been  rightly  termed  positive  institu- 
tions, as  being  very  unimportant  things,  and  we  see  where 
they  have  landed,  or  rather  we  see  where  they  have  been 


Importance  of  the  Mode.  97 

wrecked,  and  should  take  warning.  The  sentiment  expressed 
by  Bishop  Taylor,  commends  itself  to  my  mind  with  reference 
to  any  positive  institute.  "  That  it  be  obeyed  or  not  obeyed 
is  all  the  question  and  all  the  variety. — If  it  can  be  obeyed,  it 
must:  if  not,  it  must  be  let  alone."  \  would  oppose  this  no- 
ble sentiment,  to  all  that  Dr.  W.  has  written  about  usage, 
decency,  and  conveniency. 

That  God  blesses  his  cause  among  both  Baptists  and  Pasdo- 
baptists,  is  a  proof,  not  that  different  modes  of  baptism  are 
equally  acceptable  to  him,  as  our  author  insinuates,  p.  169, 
but  that  he  is  gracious  to  us,  notwithstanding  our  errors  and 
disobedience.  We  are  informed,  "  that  there  are  some  Chris- 
tians and  some  teachers  of  religion,  who  show  an  unaccount- 
able forwardness  to  introduce  discussions  on  the  mode  of  bap- 
tism.'" I  too  might  relate  some  things  which  I  have  known 
on  the  subject  of  party  zeal  in  religion.  I  have  heard  it  said, 
in  a  time  of  revival,  such  a  person  has  embraced  religion,  and 
has  come  out  in  sentiment  a  decided  Baptist.  At  this  I  did 
not  wonder,  for  to  me  it  is  natural  enough  to  suppose,  that  a 
sincere  inquiring  soul,  with  the  Bible  in  his  hand,  would  feel 
it  his  duty  to  follow  the  example  of  the  Saviour,  and  thus 
begin  to  keep  his  commandments.  But  no  sooner  has  this 
been  noised  abroad,  than  the  individual  has  been  visited  by 
many  for  the  purpose  of  persuading  him  that  something  else 
than  immersion  would  answer  ;  and  it  is  well,  if,  when  no- 
thing else  would  avail,  he  was  not  told  that  the  Baptists  ori- 
ginated with  the  mad  men  of  Munster,  and  that,  moreover, 
they  held  that  most  dreadful  tenet,  close  communion.  I  sin- 
cerely wish,  with  our  author,  that  the  number  of  those  who 
act  thus,  may  be  few,  and  that  persons  may  be  left  to  do 
what  their  consciences  and  their  Bibles  unite  in  teaching 
them  to  be  an  incumbent  duty.  Further,  a  little  of  that 
charity  and  forbearance  which  the  Dr.  so  highly  recommends, 
will  enable  our  Paedobaptist  brethren  to  make  some  allow- 
ance for  us  in  this  matter.  The  mode  of  baptism,  as  they 
term  it,  is  with  us  baptism  itself;  and  they  must  be  fully  ap- 
prized, that  in  our  estimation  a  person  who  has  not  been 
immersed,  has  not  been  baptized.  On  the  other  hand,  if  a 
believer  has  been  immersed,  they  never  question  his  having 
been  baptized.  As,  therefore,  we  do  not  stand  on  equal 
ground,  we  think  that  we  are  entitled  to  some  indulgence. 

i 


98  Concluding  Reflections. 

According  to  their  own  account,  they  contend  for  the  mode 
only  of  doing  the  thing ;  but  we  contend  for  the  thing  itself. 
There  are  many  other  topics  in  these  Lectures,  on  which  I 
might  offer  some  remarks,  but  I  have  already  indulged  in  ob- 
servations far  beyond  what  I  intended.  I  conclude,  therefore, 
by  a  few  general  reflections. 

CONCLUDING  REFLECTIONS. 

1.  The  method  of  conducting  the  Baptismal  Controversy, 
seems  to  be  greatly  improving.  It  is  now  managed  with 
more  of  Christian  temper.  We  have  reason  to  praise  God, 
and  congratulate  our  brethren  on  this  state  of  things. 

2.  The  progress  of  truth  on  the  subject  of  baptism  in  this 
country,  especially  since  the  Revolution,  has  been  astonish- 
ing. Thanks  be  given  to  the  Author  of  all  good,  that  not- 
withstanding our  numerous  deficiencies  and  great  unworthi- 
ness  as  a  denomination,  he  has  made  us  the  instruments  of 
propagating  to  such  a  degree,  correct  sentiments  relative  to 
an  important  institute  of  the  Christian  religion,  as  well  as  of 
the  conversion  of  many  sinners  unto  himself. 

3.  I  trust  we  feel  disposed  promptly  and  fully  to  recipro- 
cate the  friendly  and  exalted  sentiments  with  which  Dr. 
Woods  closes  his  treatise.  Although  we  feel  it  to  be  an  im- 
perious duty  to  contend  earnestly  for  the  faith  once  delivered 
to  the  saints,  even  if  in  so  doing  we  should  differ  from  those 
whom  we  otherwise  love  and  esteem,  yet  we  look  forward 
with  unspeakable  delight  to  the  period  when,  by  the  progress 
of  light  and  truth,  Christians  shall  dwell  together  in  unity  of 
sentiment  and  feeling.  And  this  we  think  will  be  brought 
about,  not  by  their  neglecting  or  treating  as  nonessential,  any 
of  the  commands  of  their  Lord  ;  but  by  their  being  of  one 
heart  and  one  soul,  in  believing  what  God  says,  and  in  doing 
what  he  enjoins. 

4.  Finally,  while  we  have  cause  to  lament  the  diversity  of 
sentiment  and  practice  which  prevails  among  the  professed 
followers  of  Jesus  Christ,  let  us  rejoice  in  prospect  of  that  com- 
plete felicity,  where  all  our  errors  and  imperfections  shall  be 
exchanged  for  truth  and  consummate  holiness.  "  Here  we 
know  in  part,  and  we  prophecy  in  part ;  but  when  that  which 
is  perfect  is  come,  that  which  is  in  part  shall  be  done  away.1' 

I  remain  your  brother  in  the  Lord, 

David. 


APPENDIX 

FROM  DR.  RYLAND. 


BccTvra  is  thus  used  in  Heathen  authors. 

Homer. — As  when  a  smith,  to  harden  an  iron  hatchet,  or 
pole-ax,  €*arrg<  dips  it  in  cold  water. — Odyssey,  book  ix. 
line  392. 

Plato  uses  the  word  several  times  in  one  paragraph.  Ot 
€x?et<,  ezri^ecv  ZovX^axri  £*^cci  eptu,  The  Dyers,  when  they 
are  minded  to  dip  wool,  &c. — evra  h  ZaTrrowt,  and  so  they 
dip  it,  &c.  Be  Repnblica,  Book  iv.  p.  637.  Or,  Serranus't 
edition  of  Plato's  Works,  Vol.  II.  p.  429. 

Lycophron. — The  child  Qa-^et  shall  plunge  his  sword  into 
the  viper's  bowels. — Cassandra,  ver.  1121. 

Euripides. — Go,  take  the  water-pot — and  Ca-vf^j'  dip  it  in 
the  sea. — Hecuba,  Act  iii.  ver.  609. 

Theocritus. — Every  morning  my  servant  Gx^ou  shall  dip 
me  a  cup  of  honey. — Idyllium  v.,  ver.  126. 

The  boy  let  down  a  capacious  pitcher,  making  haste  Zw^oci 
to  dip  it. — Idyllium  xiii.  ver.  47. 

Marcus  Antonius. — A  conqueror  in  that  noble  strife  of 
mastering  the  passions,  GiGeif&fcevev  immersed  entirely  in  justice. 
(penitus  justitia  imbutum.) — Lib.  iii.  p.  37. 

The  mind  Qxzrreroci  is  imbued  by  the  thoughts,  fionrrs  dip 
or  imbue  it,  therefore,  in  the  constant  meditation  of  such 
thoughts. — Lib.  v.  p.  85.     Glasgow  edition. 

Dionysius  Halicarnassensis. — One  plunging  €«ij/«$  hi* 
spear  between  the  other's  ribs,  who,  at  the  same  instant, 
pushed  his  into  his  enemy's  belly. — Antiq.  Rom.  lib.  v.  p. 
278. 


Josephus,  whose  authority  must  be  of  singular  weight,  as 
being  nearly  contemporary  with  the  apostles,  and,  like  them, 
a  Jew,  writing  in  Greek,  repeatedly  uses  the  word  /S«*-r/£*. 


100  Appendix. 

Describing  the  purification  of  the  people  at  Sin,  he  says, 
"  When  any  persons  were  defiled  by  a  dead  body,  they  put  a 
little  of  these  ashes  into  spring  water,  with  hyssop,  and  (&mt- 
n<retvrsg,)  baptizing,  i.  e.  dipping,  or  immersing,  part  ofthese 
ashes  into  it,  (e^xivov)  they  sprinkled  them  with  it."  Lib. 
iv.  c.  iv.  §  6.  p.  146.  This  quotation  clearly  shows  the  dif- 
ference between  baptizing  or  dipping,  and  rhantizing  or 
sprinkling. 

He  says,  concerning  the  ship  in  which  Jonah  attempted  to 
flee  from  the  presence  of  the  Lord,  the  ship  was  about  to  be 
baptized,  (fietwrtfyrOett)  i.  e.  sunk,  or  overwhelmed.  Antiq. 
lib.ix.  c.  x.  §  2.     Hudson's  edition,  Vol.  I.  p.  419. 

He  uses  the  same  word  twice  concerning  the  death  of  Aris- 
tobulus,  the  brother  of  Mariamne,  who  was  drowned  at  Jeri- 
cho, according  to  Herod's  order,  by  certain  Greeks,  who  en- 
ticed him  into  the  water,  to  swim,  and  then,  under  pretence 
of  play,  {Zazrit^ovres  ovk  ccvvjkuv  icoe,  x,xi  7rcwra.-5ra.tr1v  X7r/>7rvt^ctt, 
baptizing,  i.  e.  immersing,  or  putting  him  under  water,  they 
did  not  leave  off  until  they  had  quite  suffocated  him.  Jewish 
Antiq.  book  xv.  vol.  I.  page  666. 

He  mentions  the  same  event  in  his  Wars  of  the  Jews,  book 
I.  ch.  xxii.  §  2.  "  The  young  man  was  sent  to  Jericho,  and 
there,  according  to  his  order,  being  immersed  ((Sock  rt^o  (twos,} 
in  a  fish-pond,  he  came  to  his  end."     Vol.  II.  1012. 

N.  B.  Archbishop  Usher,  uses  a  word  on  this  occasion, 
which  being  now  become  ludicrous,  is  sometimes  chosen  to 
describe  our  practice,  (especially  by  such  of  our  brethren  as 
are  most  violent  for  candour,)  "  ducking  him  as  he  was  swim- 
ming, as  it  were  in  sport  and  jest,"  &c.  Should  not  our 
brethren  be  certain  that  their  Lord  wras  not  immersed,  before 
they  prefer  this  low  synonym  to  immersion  ? 

Josephus,  in  his  Life,  speaking  of  his  own  voyage  to  Rome, 
and  providential  deliverance  when  shipwrecked,  says,  "  fixir- 
Titr6ivroi  y*§  ypav  rov  nrXoiov,  for  our  own  ship  being  bap- 
tized (or  overwhelmed)  in  the  midst  of  the  Adriatic  Gulf,  we 
being  about  the  number  of  600  persons,  swam  all  night,  and 
at  day-break,  about  80  were  taken  up  by  another  ship." — 
Hudson's  Josephus,  II.  905. 

He  uses  the  same  word  figuratively  in  two  other  places. 

In  the  Wars  of  the  Jews,  he  says,  M  Many  of  the  noble 
Jews,  as  though  the  city  was  en  the  point  of  being  overwhelm-* 


Appendix.  101 

edy  (/9*TT/f#/tftf»e$,)  swam  away,  as  it  were,  from  the  city."— 
Vol.  II.  1105. 

Again,  speaking  of  the  heads  of  the  robbers  getting  into 
Jerusalem,  he  says,  "  These  very  men,  besides  the  seditions 
they  made,  baptized  the  city,  {tfiaimruv  tu»  *-*\n>,)  i.  e.  over- 
whelmed it,  plunged  it  into  ruin,  or  were  the  cause  of  its  utter 
destruction."— Vol.  II.  1169. 

The  same  author  uses  vn^etTrrt^a  figuratively  for  totally 
overwhelming.  So,  speaking  of  the  sons  of  Herod,  he  says, 
"  This,  as  the  last  storm,  («5r/C*VT«re>)  epibaptized  or  utterly 
overwhelmed,  the  young  men,  already  weather-beaten." — Vol. 
II.  1024. 

And  when  the  inhabitants  of  Jotapata  urged  him  to  stay 
(here,  they  pressed  him  not  "  to  leave  his  friends,  nor,  as  it 
^ere,  to  leap  out  of  a  ship  enduring  a  storm,  into  which  he 
had  come  in  a  calm.  For  the  city  must  be  epibaptized,  or 
utterly  overwhelmed,  (iiriGocTrrio-ftf)  no  one  daring  to  oppose 
its  enemies,  if  he,  who  kept  their  courage  up,  should  depart." 
Vol.  II.  1132. 


BxTTiga  occurs  in  the  following  passages  from  heathen  au- 
thors. 

Esop's  Fables,  Oxford  edition,  1698,  p.  88.  Fable  156, 
the  Ape  and  the  Dolphin. — "  The  dolphin  vexed  at  such  a 
falsehood,  Zcfxrt^af  uvrov  xzs-exrutn,  immersing  him,  killed 
him,  i.  e.  by  plunging  him  into  the  water.  Let  any  child 
judge  what  the  word  means  here. 

Orpheus,  in  his  Argonautics,  line  510,  p.  78. — Aax'  »rs 
Qntxfot*  it<*  GazFTtgeTo  Tirxv — But  when  the  sun  immerse* 
himself  in  the  water  of  the  ocean. 

Anacreon,  White  and  Miller's  edition,  1802,  p.  92,  $$. 
ascribed  in  some  editions  to  Julian  the  Egyptian.  In  an  old 
edition  there  is  a  Latin  translation  by  the  celebrated  Philip 
Melancthon. — "Platting  a  garland  once,  I  found  Cupid  among 
the  roses: — taking  hold  of  him  by  the  wings,  eZccittit  ett  t«» 
•iror,  I  immersed  him,  or  plunged  him  into  wine,  and  drank  him 
up  with  it,"  &c. 

An  old  verse  has  often  been  quoted  from  Plutarch, — Ar*«f 
C*5rr/£ij,  tvt»t  h  r«t  cvtipts  eft, — The  bladder  may  be  dipped, 
but  never  drowned,  or  it  may  be  immersed,  but  it  cannot  be 
kept  under  water. 

Polybius,  speaking  of  a  sea-fight  between  the  Carthagi- 
It 


102  Appendix. 

mans  and  the  Romans,  says,  "  They  immersed,  (or  sunk) 
iZxttt^ov,  many  of  thevessels  of  the  Romans." 

Basil,  the  Christian  father,  speaks  of "  suffering  with  those 
that  were  immersed  or  plunged  in  the  sea."  (£x7rTtgppivots.) 

Gregory  Nazianzen. — "■  That  we  may  not  be  immersed  or 
sunk  with  the  ship  and  the  crew."  (Goc7TTi<r6o/xtv.) 

Polybius. — "  Such  a  storm  suddenly  arose,  through  all  the 
country,  that  the  ships  were  baptized,  or  immersed  in  the  Ty- 
ber." 

Polybius,  III.  c.  72.  (See  Elzivir's  Livy,  book  xxi.) — 
"  The  infantry  crossed  it  with  difficulty,  baptized  or  immersed 
up  to  their  breasts." 

Porphyry,  speaking  of  Styx,  the  fabulous  river  of  hell,  says, 
44  The  person  that  has  been  a  sinner,  having  gone  a  little  way 
into  it,  is  plunged,  or  immersed  up  to  the  head."  £«xt/£st«}< 
(AEffli  xe<px\tf.  p.  282. 

Straho  uses,  piyji  tutyuxov  Zc&TrTt^opevuv.  Immersed  up  to 
the  middle. 

Diodorus  Siculus. — "  Many  land  animals,  carried  away 
by  the  river  Nile,  being  immersed,  are  destroyed;  others  escape, 
fleeing  to  higher  places." 

Plutarch  uses  this  word  figuratively,  speaking  of  Otho's 
"  being  immersed,  or  overwhelmed,  or  sunk,  (fiefix7rTi<rf>ttvt$) 
in  debts  of  fifty  millions  of  drachmas." 

Plato  speaks  of  his  "  knowing  the  youth  to  be  overwhelmed 
or  immersed  in  sophistry." 

Strabo. — "  But  the  lakes  near  Agrigentum  have  indeed  the 
taste  of  sea- water,  but  a  different  nature,  for  it  does  not  befal 
the  things  which  cannot  swim  to  be  immersed,  (fixTwgte-dxi,) 
but  they  swim  on  the  surface  like  wood."  Geography,  I.  ix. 
p.  421. 

He  speaks  of  a  river,  in  another  place,  whose  waters  are 
so  buoyant "  that  if  an  arrow  be  thrown  in,  poXXis  fix7rT  i£t<r6xt, 
it  would  scarcely  be  immersed,  or  would  hardly  sink."  I.  xii. 
p.  809. 

.He  mentions  also  a  lake  on  the  top  of  which  bitumen  floats, 
in  which  a  man  cannot  be  immersed,  fixnTi^vrbxi,  but  is  borne 
up  by  the  water.  I.  xvi.  p.  1108. 

Dion  Cassius. — "  Such  a  storm  suddenly  pervaded  all  the 
eountry,  that  the  ships  that  were  in  the  Tyber  were  immersed 
or  sunk."  ru  irXoix  ret  n  ret  T  iZe fdi  Zxn-TirSnwt.  Book  xxxvii. 
§  57.  Vol.  I.  p.  148. 


Appendix.  103 

(2) — "  how  would  not  his  ship  be  immersed  or  sunk  Zxirmr- 
iem  by  the  multitude  of  our  rowers  ?"  Book  1.  §  18.  Vol.  L 
p.  617. 

(3) — "  they  were  either  immersed,  {iZxttti^cvto,)  their  ships 
being  bored  through,  or,"  &-C. 

(4) — "  these  from  above  immersing  (Zccmi^ovTes)  or  sink- 
ing them  (i.  e.  the  ships)  with  stones  and  engines." — Book 
1.  §  32.  Vol.  I.  647. 

Diodorus  Siculus. — "  Most  of  the  land  animals,  if  they  are 
intercepted  by  the  river,  are  destroyed,  being  immersed.  (£«*■- 
Tigouevx.)  lib.  1.  §  36.  Vol.  I.  pa'ge  43.  Amsterdam,  1746. 

(2) — tovs  $e  itiaTacs  av  Qx7r-t<?ov<Ti    rxii  urtytyxiq.      But  the 

common  people  they  do  not  overwhelm  with  taxes. — lib.  1.  § 
67.  Vol.  I.  p.  85. 

(3) — T>j?  hvewi  Gv6te4enrn,  in  the  text,  "whose  ship  being 
sunk."  In  the  note,  u  Gx7TT(<r6ei<rns,  being  immersed,  is  the 
Coislinian  reading,  which  is  sufficiently  elegant.  See  Poly- 
bius,  1.  51."  lib.  xi.  §  15.  Vol.  1.  417. 

(4) — "  the  river  being  borne  on  with  a  more  violent  stream, 
(noXXovg  i^xrrrKre,)  immersed,  or  overwhelmed  many ."  lib.  16. 
§  80.  Vol.  11.  143. 

Heliodorus. — ;'  killing  some  on  the  land,  and  immersing  or 
plunging  (&ec7TTK?ovTM)  others  into  the  lake,  with  their  boats 
and  their  little  huts."  Ethiopia,  lib.  i.  cap.  xxx.  page  55. 

(2) — "  perceiving  that  he  was  altogether  abandoned  to 
grief,  and  overwhelmed  or  immersed  in  calamity." — tsj  <rv(A- 
<po£oi  Zi&cnrTiGfAsvcv.  Lib.  ii.  cap.  iii.  p.  65. 

(3) — i;  since  the  things  you  met  with  have  overwhelmed  you. 
(*6«5m£s».  Casus  tui  obruebant  ac  demergebant")  lib.  v.  cap. 
xvi.  p.  227. 

Life  of  Homer,  ascribed  to  Dionysius  Halicarnensis,  "  Ho- 
mer speaks  of  the  whole  sword  being  so  immersed  (S*5TT<<r- 
6erTos)  in  blood,  as  to  grow  warm  with  it." — Opuscula  My- 
thologica,  page  297. 

Aristotle  uses  this  word  when  speaking  of  the  Phenicians 
that  dwell  at  Cadiz,  "  who,  sailing  beyond  the  pillars  of  Her- 
cules, came  to  certain  uninhabited  lands,  which  at  the  ebb, 
are  used  not  to  be  immersed  or  covered  over  with  water,  &»*•- 
rt^e<rdcci,  but  when  the  tide  is  at  the  full,  the  coast  is  quite  in- 
undated."— De  Mirabilibvs,  page  735. 

Lucian  represents  Timon  the  man-hater  as  saying  "  if  any 
one  being  carried  away  by  a  river,  should  stretch  forth  his 


104  Appendix. 

hands  to  me  for  aid,  I  would  push  him  down  when  sinking, 
CxTTTigttTct,  that  he  should  never  rise  again."  Vol.  I.  page  139. 

The  two  most  diminutive  instances  produced  by  Schwar- 
zius  are  these: 

JEschylus. — "  Immersing  his  two  edged  sword  in  slaugh- 
ters." Doubtless  by  plunging  it  into  their  bodies,  not  by  hold- 
ing it  before  a  small  puncture  to  be  sprinkled. 

Aristophanes,  in  Plato,  says,  "  I  am  one  of  those  who  were 
baptized  yesterday." — meaning,  who  drank  much,  or  as  an 
Englishman  would  say,  who  had  well  soaked  ourselves,  or 
were  immersed  in  wine. 

An  instance  has  been  quoted  against  us  from  Homer's 
BccTpx^of^vo^tc^tei,  or  battle  of  the  frogs  and  mice,  where  it  is 
said  of  the  death  of  the  frog  Crambophagus, 

And  the  lake  was  tinged  or  dyed  with  purple  blood:  or  it 
was  overwhelmed  with  blood. 

But  let  the  burlesque  nature  of  the  poem  be  considered, 
where  every  thing  is  heightened  to  the  most  extravagant  de- 
gree, and  the  gods  are  introduced  as  consulting  about  this 
tremendous  war,  and  the  word  immerse  would  not  be  too 
strong  for  the  Poet's  design.  The  heart  of  this  gigantic  and 
heroic  frog  was  so  full  of  blood,  that  it  made  the  lake  so  red, 
that  a  solid  body  dipped  in  blood  could  not  have  been  redder. 

But  one  passage  is  produced  from  Origen,  on  which  more 
stress  is  laid  than  on  all  others,  in  which  he  speaks  of  the 
wood  of  Elijah's  sacrifice  as  being  baptized,  though  the  wocd 
was  certainly  not  dipped  in  water,  but  four  barrels  of  water 
poured  upon  it  three  times  over.  Very  true.  But  read  the 
account  in  1  Kings,  xviii.  33 — 35,  consider  the  object  of  the 
prophet  to  prevent  all  possibility  of  collusion,  and  then  say  if 
Origen  had  written  in  English,  might  he  not  have  used  the 
word  immerse  with  propriety,  and  without  rendering  its  usual 
meaning  ambiguous  ?  Also,  would  not  any  of  our  opponents 
think  such  a  three-fold  soaking,  as  bad  as  even  a  trine  immer- 
sion ?t 

References  to  immersion  in  the  Fathers  might  by  produc- 
ed without  end. 

*  This  is  from  C«ttt«,  not  from  C*vt<£*. 

t  The  Reviewer  in  the  Evangelical  Magazine  for  18 13,  p. 


Appendix.  103 

I  will  only  mention  one  in  Chrysostom,  on  Col.  ii.  12. 
*T«<pj)  np*v  o  spares  uiSfaxo?,  says  he,  ercc<pn  ov*  it  yn  uXX*  tv 
vtetrt,  Our  first  (or  former)  man  is  buried,  he  is  buried  not 
in  earth,  but  in  water. 

Surely  if  these  instances  will  not  suffice,  we  must  despair  of 
settling  the  meaning  of  any  word  in  a  dead  language;  and  if 
English  should  be  as  long  disused  as  Greek,  it  may  by  and 
by  be  questioned,  if  the  English  Baptists  themselves  intended 
by  pleading  for  immersion,*  to  insist  on  the  propriety  of  put- 
ting the  whole  body  under  water. 

No  man  can  have  a  greater  respect  than  myself,  for  my 
dear  and  venerable  friend  Mr.  Scott,  whom  I  consider  as  the 
best  practical  Expositor  of  Scripture  that  ever  I  read;  but  I 
think,  if  he  were  to  re-examine  the  subject,  and  consider  all 
the  evidence  here  produced,  he  would  hardly  attribute  it  to 
our  regarding  "  Jewish  traditions  more  than  either  the  lan- 
guage of  Scripture  or  the  Greek  idiom,"  that  we  contend  that 
Baptism  always  signifies  immersion.  See  Note  on  Matt.  iii.  6. 

On  the  most  impartial  consideration,  I  am  compelled  in 
my  conscience  to  believe,  that  there  never  was  a  word  in  any 
language,  with  which  so  much  pains,  management,  and  vio- 
lence was  ever  used,  to  deprive  it  of  its  original  meaning,  as 
hath  been  employed  with  tac-za-ru  and  Zorxri^a.  And  I  verily 
think,  that  if  Christian  baptism  had  never  been  instituted  or 
never  been  altered,  there  is  no  word  in  the  Greek  language, 
whose  meaning  would  have  been  less  disputed. 

Isaac  Causabo:;,  at  the  end  of  Whitaker's  Greek  Testa- 
ment, London,  1633,  referring  to  Matt.  iii.  5,  6,  has  these 
words,  "  Hie  enim  fuit  baptizandi  ritas,  ut  in  aquas  immer- 
gerentur :  quod  vel  ipsa  vox  QocvTifytv  declarat  satis,  qua:  non 
significat  $vvstv,  quod  estfundum  petere  cum  sua  pernicie,  ita 
profecto  non  est  entTroheigeiv.  Differunt  enim  hcec  tria,  e7rt7ro- 
Aa^eo,  £«?»•*■<£«<»,  $uveiv.  Unde  intelligimus ,  non  esse  abs  re 
quod  jampridem  nonnulli  disputarent,  de  toto  corpore  immer- 
gendo  in  ceremonia  baptismi :  Vocem  enim  Qxierifyiy  urgebant. 
For  this  was  the  ancient  rite  of  baptizing,  that  they  should  be 

461,  refers  to  a  passage  in  Aristotle.     Why  did  he  not  in- 
sert the  whole  passage  from  Dr.  Gale,  pp.  116,  117  ! 

*  All  that  the  Reviewer  of  Mr.  Booth  says,  respecting  Dr. 
Gale*s  confession  that  Qetnrra  does  not  always  import  a  total 
immersion,  applies  equally  to  the  English  word  dip.  See  Dr. 
Gale,  p.  140, 


106  Appendix, 

immersed  in  water,  which  even  the  word  G*irrtgw  sufficiently 
declares;  which  does  not  signify  tweiv,  which  is  to  sink  fatal- 
ly to  the  bottom;*  so  certainly  it  is  not  vrt7roXoigeir,  to  swim 
on  the  top.  For  these  three  differ,  e-srisroXu^eiv,  Gxirrtgeiv,  tv- 
n$v,  to  swim  on  the  surface,  to  immerse,  to  sink  to  the  bot- 
tom. Whence  we  understand  that  it  is  not  without  ground, 
that  some  have  disputed  long  ago,  respecting  the  immersion 
of  the  whole  body  in  the  ceremony  of  baptism;  for  they  urged 
the  word  6a*-<r<£ej>»." 

I  close  with  a  remark  of  Dr.  Campbell.  "  Another  error 
in  disputation,  which  is  by  far  too  common,  is  when  one  will 
admit  nothing  in  the  plea  or  arguments  of  an  adversary  to 
have  the  smallest  weight.  T  have  heard  a  disputant  of  this 
stamp,  in  defiance  of  etymology  and  use,  maintain  that  the 
word  rendered  in  the  New  Testament  Baptize,  means  more 
properly  to  sprinkle,  than  to  plunge,  and  in  defiance  of  all 
antiquity,  that  the  former  method  was  the  earliest,  and  for 
many  centuries  the  most  general  practice  in  baptizing.  One 
who  argues  in  this  manner,  never  fails,  with  persons  of  know- 
ledge, to  betray  the  cause  he  would  defend;  and  though  with 
respect  to  the  vulgar,  bold  assertions  generally  succeed  as 
well  as  arguments,  sometimes  better;  yet  a  candid  mind  will 
disdain  to  take  the  help  of  a  falsehood,  even  in  support  of 
truth."  Lectures  on  Systematic  Theology  and  Pulpit  Elo- 
quence, p.  480. 

Some  of  our  modern  Paedobaptists  are  determined,  how- 
ever, that  no  one  shall  detect  them  in  making  the  least  con- 
cession, on  either  branch  of  this  controversy;  and  they  main- 
tain that  no  concession  is  of  any  avail  as  to  the  meaning  of 
the  term,  or  the  practice  of  the  primitive  church,  unless  the 
person  who  makes  it,  immediately  alters  his  practice,  and 
even  though  he  retain  his  Paedobaptist  sentiment,  yet  refuses 
to  baptize  any  child  except  by  immersion.  Dr.  Wall,  Dr. 
Campbell,  and  hundreds  more  of  their  greatest  scholars,  ac- 
cording to  these  gentlemen,  will  have  hard  work  to  vindicate 
their  integrity.  We  leave  them  to  settle  this  controversy.  We 
conceive  that  the  force  of  truth,  constrained  them  to  make 
concessions  which  the  force  of  custom  prevented  them  from 
carrying  into  practice. 


*  Yet  Josephus,  Polybiits,  Dion,  Strabo,  Diodqrus,  and 
Hbliodorus,  sometimes  used  it  in  this  sense. 


ERRATA. 

Page  Line 

5,  1 1— for  p.  35,  read  p.  55. 

11,  13 — after  as,  read  scholars. 

13,  22— for  p.  85,  read  p.  94. 
35,       1 — -for  intercourse,  read  improvement. 

43,  13 — after  introduced,  read  in  its  place. 

49,  10 — for  youth,  read  youths. 

52,  12 — for  immersions,  read  immersion. 

59,  31 — -for  izr,  read  tea. 

68,  24 — after  according  to,  read  the. 
75,  6— for  xxiv.  35,  read  xxxiv.  25. 
78,       4  from  the  bottom,  for  £,  read  <r. 

84,  14 — for  Apostles,  read  Apostle. 

84,  at  the  bottom,  supply  why  a  religious  rite,  though  de- 

noted by  a  word  in  common 

85,  3 — for  word,  read  words. 
94,       9 — for  make,  read  makes. 


THREE 


ADDITIONAL  LETTERS 


OF 

DAVID  AND  JOHN, 

CONTAINING 

ANIMADVERSIONS 

UPON 
THE  LECTURES  OF  DR.  WOODS 

ON 

INFANT  BAPTISM. 


FIRST  PUBLISHED  IN  THE  COLUMBIAN  STAR. 


RE-PUBLISHED  AT   THE   DEPOSITORY  OP 

THE  BAPTIST  GENERAL  TRACT  SOCIETY. 

NO.  36   NORTH  FIFTH  STREET. 
PHILADELPHIA. 

1830. 


To  the  Editor  of  the  Columbian  Star  and  Christian  Index: 
Dear  Brother — You  had  the  kindness  formerly  to  al- 
low a  place  in  your  paper  to  the  Letters,  written  by  a  chris- 
tian friend  and  myself,  containing  animadversions  upon  the 
Lectures  of  Dr.  Woods  on  Infant  Baptism.  These  Lec- 
tures have  passed  through  a  second  edition;  and  the  altera- 
tions and  additions  that  have  been  made,  have  given  occa- 
sion for  three  additional  Letters,  which  are  now  offered  to 
you  for  publication.        Yours,  &c 


LETTER    VXH. 

Dear  Brother — You  have  been  apprized  for  a  consid- 
erable time  that  the  Lectures  of  Dr.  Woods  on  Infant  Bap- 
tism have  passed  through  a  second  edition.  I  obtained  a 
copy  yesterday  and  will  send  it  to  you  by  the  earliest  op- 
portunity for  your  perusal.  It  contains  thirty-one  pages 
more  than  the  former  edition,  besides  an  appendix  of  six- 
teen pages,  and  an  additional  preface  of  two  pages. 

Kind  notice  of  the  Letters  of  David  and  John. 

In  the  additional  preface,  Dr.  W.  has  noticed  our  Letters 
in  a  very  kind  manner.  Though  you  may  regret,  as  I  do, 
that  he  did  not  feel  himself  at  liberty  to  reply  to  our  argu- 
ments, yet  I  am  sure  you  will  be  gratified  to  perceive  the 
good  spirit  that  his  remarks  evince.     They  are  as  follows: 

"  I  wish  to  express  my  particular  respect  for  those  who 
have  made  remarks  on  my  Lectures;  particularly  for  those 
who  wrote  the  Letters  of  David  and  John,  and  for  the  Au- 
thor of  the  Numbers  in  the  Christian  Watchman,  by  Se- 
nex.  Both  these  publications  were  kindly  forwarded  to  me. 
The  pamphlet  containing  the  Letters  above  mentioned, 
which  exhibits  very  respectable  talents  as  well  as  candid 
and  fraternal  feelings,  was  rendered  still  more  valuable  to 
me,  by  a  private  and  affectionate  letter  which  accompanied 
it,  from  one  of  the  authors. 

To  the  reasoning  contained  in  the  publications  above 
named,  I  decline  any  formal  answer,  in  conformity  with 
my  previous,  and  uniform  resolution.  But  it  will  not  be 
difficult  for  men  aecostomed  to  controversy  to  see,  that  my 
silence  in  this  case  must  be  a  matter  of  some  self  denial. 

I  take  pleasure  in  acknowledging,  that  the  strictures  of 
my  Baptist  Brethren  have  been  of  real  use  to  me,  and  have 
led  me  to  correct  some  mistakes,  to  give  to  some  of  my  ex- 
pressions and  arguments  a  more  unexceptionable  form,  and 
to  establish  my  position  by  some  new  considerations. — 


4  Concessions. 

Had  I  more  time  to  devote  to  the  subject,  I  should  be  able 
to  derive  more  benefit  still  from  the  remarks  of  my  oppo- 
nents." 

concessions. 
The  next,  which  is  the  concluding  paragraph  of  the  pre- 
face, mentions  that  he  has  been  induced  to  give  a  new  ex- 
amination to  the  arguments  from  ecclesiastical  history;  and 
that  in  this  examination  he  has  requested  and  obtained  the 
aid  of  his  colleague,  the  Rev.  Professor  Stuart.  The  re- 
sult of  this  examination  he  states  is  an  increased  and  full 
conviction  that  Ecclesiastical  History  affords  a  conclusive 
argument  in  favor  of  Infant  Baptism.  I  was  induced  by 
these  remarks  to  direct  my  first  attention  to  the  Lecture 
which  contains  the  argument  from  Ecclesiastical  History; 
and  I  find  that,  in  this  part  of  the  work,  the  present  edition 
differs  considerably  from  the  former.  As  I  purpose  to  send 
you  the  book  that  you  may  read  and  judge  for  yourself  what 
additional  strength  the  argument  has  acquired  in  the  pre- 
sent edition,  I  shall  content  myself  with  stating  the  altera- 
tions that  have  been  made  in  so  much  of  the  argument  as 
relates  to  the  testimony  of  Justin  Martyr  and  lrenaeus,  the 
the  first  and  oldest  witnesses  that  are  cited. 

Justin  Martyr. 

Former  Edition.  Present  Edition. 
My  first  citation  is  from  Jus-  A  citation  has  commonly  been 
tin  Martyr,  who  was  born  near  made  from  the  apology  of  Justin 
the  close  of  the  first  century,  Martyr,  written  about  the  mid- 
and  who  wrote  his  apology,  from  die  of  the  second  century.— 
which  the  citation  is  made,  near  Among  those  who  were  mem- 
the  middle  of  the  second  centu-  bers  of  the  church,  he  says,  there 
ry.  Among  those  who  were  were  many  of  both  sexes,  some 
members  of  the  church,  he  says,  sixty,  and  some  seventy  years 
there  were  many  of  both  sexes,  old,  who  were  made  disciples  to 
S07ne  sixty,  and  some  seventy  Christ  £*  7iai8cov,  from  their 
years  old,  who  were  made  disci-  infancy  or  childhood,  the  word  he 
pies  from  their  infancy  The  usesis^a^ev^av}theywere 
word  he  uses  is  tfxa^yjttvprjaav,  proselyted  or  made  disciples, 
they  were  proselyted,  or  made  dis-  Though  I  have  no  doubt  of  ap- 
eries; the  very  word  which  plying  this  word  to  infant  chil- 
Christ  had  used  in  his  commis-  dren,  who  are  publicly  conse- 
sion  to  his  Apostles—"  Go  ye  crated  to  God,  and  whom  their 
and  make  disciples  of  all  na-  parents  and  the  church  engage 
tions,"  fia^ttv6at£.  The  per-  to  instruct  and  train  up  for 
sons  referred  to,  Justin  says,  Christ;  yet  as  the  phrase,  ** 
were  made  disciples  tx  rtatSwv,  rtatScov,  may  relate  to  children 
from  their  ea,rly  childhood.    The  who  have  come  to  years  pf  under- 


Concessions*  5 

word  is  applied  to  the  little  chil-  standing,  as  well  as  to  infants, 
dren  whom  Christ  took  in  his  I  am  satisfied  on  a  review  of  the 
arms  and  blessed.  It  is  evident  testimony  of  Justin,  that  it  can- 
therefore  that  Justin  understood  not  well  be  urged  as  conclusive 
the  command  of  Christ  to  in  favor  of  paedobaptism.  Still 
make  disciples  and  baptize,  as  I  think  it  altogether  probable, 
applicable  to  little  children,  and  beyond  any  reasonable 
And  he  wrote  only  about  one  doubt,  that  Justin  meant  in  this 
hundred  years  after  Matthew,  place  to  speak  of  those  who 
who  records  that  command.  were  made  disciples,  or  intro- 

duced into  the  school  of  Christ 
by  baptism  when  they  were  in- 
fants. 

You  will  perceive,  from  this  comparison,  that  your  stric- 
tures upon  the  argument  which  was  founded  upon  the  testi- 
mony of  Justin  Martyr,  appear  to  have  been  of"  real  use;'' 
but  it  is  certain  that  they  have  not  produced  an"  increased 
and  full  conviction,1'  that  this  testimony  "  affords  a  conclu- 
sive argument  in  favor  of  Infant  Baptism."  The  erroneous 
statement  which  you  pointed  out  respecting  the  word  used 
by  the  evangelists,  for  the  children  which  Christ  took  up 
in  his  arms  and  blessed  has  been  corrected;  or,  I  ought  ra- 
ther to  say  it  is  not  repeated.  The  argument  is  really 
given  up.  It  is  indeed  still  thought  to  be  "  beyond  any  rea- 
sonable doubt,  that  Justin  meant  those  who  were  made  dis- 
ciples when  they  were  infants."  But  opinions  which  are 
acknowledged  to  be  without  proof  do  not  constitute  argu 
rnent.  In  your  strictures  it  was  satisfactorily  demonstra- 
ted, as  it  appeared  to  me,  not  only  that  the  word  rtatjis  ap- 
plicable to  any  age  from  infancy  to  manhood,  but  also  that 
in  ordinary  cases,  it  is  not  the  term  which  would  be  used  to 
denote  a  mere  infant.  It  fell  in  with  the  design  of  Justin 
to  give  as  early  a  date  as  possible  to  the  discipleship  of  the 
persons  whom  he  mentions.  And  since  he  carries  back  this 
date,  not  to  their  infancy,  but  to  their  youth  or  boyhood, 
the  proper  inference  to  be  drawn,  is,  that  these  persons  had 
not  been  made  disciples  when  they  were  infants.  Some 
consideration  is  due  also  to  the  fact,  that  the  persons  of 
whom  Justin  speaks,  were,  at  the  time,  far  advanced  in 
age.  Persons  who  have  just  entered  upon  their  manhood, 
are  not  accustomed,  when  they  speak  of  their  boyhood,  to 
include  in  it  so  many  years  as  very  aged  persons  do.  It  is 
altogether  unnatural,  in  reviewing  the  history  of  one  who 
has  attained  to  the  age  of  sixty  or  seventy  years,  to  limit 
the  period  of  his  boyhood,  to  the  first  one,  two,  five,  or  even 
fifteen  years  of  his  life. 

a2 


Accusation* 
Iren^us. 


Former  Edition. 
Irenaeus,  a  disciple  of  Poly- 
carp  who  was  a  disciple  of  John, 
was  born  near  the  close  of  the 
first  century.  He  says,  "  Christ 
came  to  save  all  persons,  who 
by  him  are  born  again  unto  God, 
(renascuntur  in  Deum,)  infants, 
and  little  ones,  and  children,  and 
youths,  and  elder  persons."....In 
this  argument  we  are  not  con- 
cerned at  all  with  the  opinions 
of  Irenaeus,  as  to  the  efficacy  of 
baptism.  Our  only  enquiry  is, 
whether  it  appears  from  his 
writings,  that  Infant  Baptism 
was  the  prevailing  practice. — 
The  passage  above  cited  con- 
tains satisfactory  proof  of  this, 
as  it  fairly  admits  of  no  con- 
struction which  can  lead  to  any 
other  conclusion. 


Present  Edition. 
Irenaeus,  a  disciple  of  Poly- 
carp,  who  was  a  disciple  of 
John,  was  born  near  the  close  of 
the  first  century.  He  says; 
"  Christ  came  to  save  all  per- 
sons, who  by  him  are  born 
again  unto  God,  (renascuntur 
in  Deum )  infants,  and  little  ones, 
and  children,  and  youths,  and 
elder  persons.".. ..In  this  argu- 
ment we  are  not  concerned  at 
all  with  the  opinions  entertain- 
ed by  Irenaeus  as  to  the  efficacy 
of  Baptism.  Our  only  inquiry 
is,  whether  it  appears  from  his 
writings,  that  Infant  Baptism 
was  the  prevailing  practice. — 
The  passage  above  cited  is  sup- 
posed to  contain  proof  of  this. 
But  though  it  is  quite  evident 
that  the  word  renasci  was  used 
by  Irenaeus,  as  well  as  by  the 
Christian  Fathers  generally,  to 
denote  baptism,  I  shall  not 
count  this  passage  among  those 
which  are  to  be  regarded  as  of 
chief  importance  and  as  most 
decisive  in  favor  of  Infant  Bap- 
tism. 

You  will  perceive  that  much  less  confidence  is  expressed 
in  the  proof  which  this  testimony  has  been  supposed  to  con- 
tain. You  have  shown  that  the  passage  quoted  from  Ire- 
naeus receives  abetter  interpretation,  when  the  word  renas- 
ci, to  be  born  again,  is  taken  in  its  scriptural  sense;  and 
with  this  Bcriptural  sense  Irenaeus  cannot  be  supposed  to 
have  been  unacquainted.  That  Christian  writers  of  so  ear- 
ly an  age  should  have  wholly  lost  the  scriptural  sense  and 
use  of  the  terms  regenerated  and  born  again,  which  denoted 
the  essential  distinction  of  the  christian  character,  is  even 
more  incredible  than  that  infant  baptism  should  have  been 
introduced. 

Accusation. 

At  the  end  of  the  Lecture,  which  contains  the  argument 
from  Ecclesiastical  History,  a  note  is  added  of  which  the 
following  is  the  first  paragraph: 

"I  am  reluctant  to  say  what  truth  and  justice  seem  to 
require  me  to  say,  respecting  the  manner  in  which  several 


Accusation.  7 

Baptist  writers  have  treated  the  historical  argument  in  fa- 
vor of  Infant  Baptism.  I  make  the  appeal  to  men  of  any 
denomination,  who  have  the  requisite  qualifications,  and 
can  find  opportunity  to  give  the  subject  an  impartial  and 
thorough  examination,  whether  an  instance  can  easily  be 
found,  of  greater  unfairnsss  in  reasoning,  or  of  a  more  de- 
termined effort  to  discolor  facts,  and  evade  all  arguments 
on  the  opposite  side,  than  is  exhibited  in  the  writers  refer- 
red to." 

There  is  a  very  grievous  accusation  implied  in  these  sen- 
tences; but  I  am  not  willing  to  believe  that  it  was  intended 
for  us.  To  be  thought  by  Dr.  W.  to  be  so  uncandid,  would 
be  extremely  painful.  But  I  am  willing  to  indulge  the  plea- 
sure of  believing  that  he  judges  us  to  possess  "  candid  and 
fraternal  feelings."  Besides  I  do  not  know  any  thing  in 
your  Letter  on  this  subject  which  could  furnish  ground  for 
so  grievous  an  accusation.  Almost  every  thing  which  you 
have  advanced  is  sustained  by  the  authority  of  Dr.  Dod- 
dridge, whose  reputation  for  candor  is  well  established,  and 
who  in  this  instance,  had  no  temptation  to  "  discolor  facts." 
When  we  say  on  the  subject  of  Infant  Baptism  what  Dod- 
dridge, Taylor,  Salmasius,  Suicerus,  Curcellceus,  and  Epis- 
copius,  have  said  before  us,  whatever  may  be  thought  of 
the  truth  of  our  statements,  our  candor  ought  not  to  be 
questioned. 

I  have  another  reason  for  believing  that  these  accusations 
were  not  intended  for  us.  Your  Letter  pointed  out  mis- 
takes of  Dr.  W.  respecting  the  testimony  of  Justin  Martyr, 
which  a  person  of  a  more  suspicious  mind  than  yourself 
might  have  pronounced  to  be  an  "  effort  to  discolor  facts:" 
but  no  suspicion  of  this  kind  was  expressed.  When  you 
noticed  the  error  in  which  a  fact  respecting  the  use  of  rtcuj 
had  been  wholly  mis-stated,  you  simply  called  it  an  over- 
sight. In  animadverting  upon  that  complete  discoloring  of 
Justin  Martyr's  testimony,  which  had  been  produced  by 
giving  such  a  translation  to  rtcwj  as  bound  its  sense  down 
to  the  period  of  mere  infancy;  you  simply  stated,  that  this 
translation  cannot  be  justified,  and  adduced  the  authority  of 
Justin  Martyr  himself  and  of  the  very  Lexicon  which  has 
been  published  at  the  Seminary  where  Dr.  W.  teaches. — 
Dr.  W.  has  become  sensible  of  these  errors;  and  I  think  he 
cannot  be  insensible  of  the  kind  manner  in  which  they  were 
pointed  out,  and  I  conclude  that  he  would  not  have  return- 


8  Baptismal  Regeneration. 

ed  this  kindness  by  bringing  against  you  the  accusation  con- 
tained in  the  preceding  quotation. 

The  only  part  of  our  Letters  which,  so  far  as  I  can  dis- 
cover, has  received  a  formal  reply,  is  what  relates  to  the  in- 
terpretation of  1  Cor.  vii.  14.  A  refutation  of  this  inter- 
pretation is  attempted  in  a  note  at  the  end  of  Lecture  V. 
I  design  to  enter  into  a  very  careful  examination  of  this 
refutation,  and  will  give  you  the  result  at  a  future  day. 
Very  affectionately  yours,  JOHN- 


LETTER   XX. 

Dear  Brother — I  thank  you  for  the  privilege  of  peru- 
sing the  copy  you  sent  me  of  the  2d  edition  of  Dr.  Wood's 
Lectures  on  Infant  Baptism.  I  am  pleased  with  the  kind 
manner  in  which  he  notices  our  publication.  Although  he 
has  declined  a  formal  reply,  yet,  he  has  given  particular  at- 
tention to  some  of  our  animadversions.  Your  exposition  of 
1  Cor.  vii.  14,  has  claimed  special  regard,  and  credit  must 
be  given  to  our  Author  for  the  ingenuity  with  which  he  has 
attempted  a  refutation  of  your  views  on  that  passage.  I 
have,  however,  no  misgiving  on  that  subject,  and  I  am  per- 
suaded that  the  ground  you  have  occupied  is  still  tenable. 
1  shall  be  glad,  therefore,  to  receive  from  you  further  re- 
marks on  that  text,  which,  of  all  others  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment, has  been  deemed,  by  some  of  our  Predobaptist  breth- 
ren, of  the  greatest  importance  in  this  controversy. 

Baptismal  Regeneration. 

While  the  citations  from  the  early  writers  fail  to  support 
infant  baptism,  a  strong  argument  against  it  may  be  derived 
from  the  language  they  have  used  when  speaking  of  bap- 
tism. They  call  it  Regeneration  and  Illumination.  They 
have  in  this  used  a  similar  mode  of  speaking  to  that  which 
is  employed  by  the  Redeemer:  "  This  bread  is  my  body." — 
They  understood  baptism  to  be  a  sign  of  Regeneration  or 
Illumination:  or,  in  other  words, they  regarded  the  baptized 
as  Regenerated  or  Illuminated  persons,  that  is,  Believers. 

It  is  well  known  that  the  church  of  England  uses  the 
same  kind  of  language  with  regard  to  baptized  persons, 


Baptismal  Regeneration*  9 

which  is  found  in  the  early  Christian  Fathers:  and  her 
meaning  has  been  thus  explained  by  a  late  writer.  "  I  con- 
tend, then,  that  the  ground  on  which  the  church  speaks  of 
all  those,  whom  she  has  baptized,  as  regenerate,  is  neither 
more  nor  less  than  the  supposition — the  assumption,  of 
their  sincerity  in  their  professions."  An  Inquiry  in- 
to the  Effect  of  Baptism  by  the  Rev.  Joseph  Scott,  M.  A.  p. 
136.  The  same  writer  says,  p.  5,  "It  is  well  known,  that 
in  very  early  times,  strong  language  came  into  use,  in  the 
Christian  church,  concerning  baptism,  and  the  blessings 
connected  with  it:"  and  he  accounts  for  the  use  of  this 
strong  language,  in  the  following  manner:  p.  172.  "  An 
easier  and  mone  obvious  solution  is,  that  of  under- 
standing professed  Christians  to  be  addressed  upon  the 
ground  of  their  profession — upon  the  supposition  of  their 
sincerity.  This,  we  have  seen,  is  continually  done  by  our 
church:  more  or  less  it  is  done  at  all  times:  and  never  could 
it  be  so  natural  to  do  it,  as  when  the  profession  of  Chris- 
tianity brought  with  it  many  dangers  to  men's  property,  to 
their  liberty,  and  even  to  their  lives.  In  such  times  the 
apostles  wrote,  and  in  similar  times  the  language  was  in- 
troduced, which  has  led  men  too  frequently  to  confound 
the  outward  sign  with  the  inward  grace  of  baptism;  or  at 
least  to  suppose,  that  the  latter  necessarily  accompanies 
the  former.  In  such  times  it  was  natural  and  reasonable 
to  believe,  that  profe ssed  Christians  were  real  Christians — 
that  those  who  were  baptized  were  indeed  regenerate  by 
the  Spirit  of  God.  And  this  affords  a  most  easy  account 
of  the  means  by  which  the  strong  language,  that  has  been 
so  long  in  use,  was  brought  into  the  church."  These  re- 
marks appear  to  me  to  contain  sound  sense  and  a  satisfac- 
tory explanation  of  the  manner  in  which  the  strong  lan- 
guage under  consideration  came  into  use.  And  as  it  was 
then,  "  natural  and  reasonable  to  believe,  that  those  who 
were  baptized  were  indeed,  regenerate  by  the  Spirit  of 
God;"  so  it  would  have  been  unnatural  and  unreasonable 
to  apply  this  strong  language  concerning  baptism  to  per- 
sons who  could  give  no  evidence  of  being  regenerate. — 
When  he  comes  to  account  for  the  use  of  this  strong  lan- 
guage by  the  church  of  England  to  baptized  infants,  this 
author  finds  great  difficulty.  On  this  subject  he  writes 
thus:  "  These  questions  are  addressed  as  to  the  child  him- 
self; the  answers  considered  as  his  answers.  It  is  as  if,  by 
a  sort  of  legal  fiction,  to  which  we  are  no  strangers  in  the 
most  important  temporal  transactions,  the  soul  of  the  child 


10  Tertullian. 

were  considered  as  transferred  to  his  sponsor,  and  as  speak- 
ing in  and  by  him One  is  certainly  somewhat  at 

a  loss  for  words,  in  which  to  speak  of  engagements,  sup- 
posed to  be  made  by  an  infant  incapable  of  any  knowledge 

of  the  transaction But,  as  the  case  of  infants 

is  obviously  attended  with  difficulties  peculiar  to  itself,  the 

church  has  entered  into  explanation  on  the  subject 

If  it  be  thought  that  there  has  been  some  more  difficulty  in 
making  out  this  case  than  that  of  adults;  I  beg  to  suggest, 
that  it  is  nothing  more  than  what  naturally  results  from  the 
condition  of  infants,  supposed  to  make  vows,  and  on  the 
faith  of  those  vows,  pronounced  regenerate;  while  they  can 
give  no  evidence,  in  their  conduct,  either  of  a  regenerate 
or  unregenerate  state."  p.  141 — 146.  Mr.  Scott  may  have 
stated  correctly  the  ground  on  which  the  church  of  Eng- 
land declares  baptized  infants  to  be  regenerate:  but  was 
this  "  sort  of  legal  fiction"  understood  and  practiced  upon 
in  the  days  of  Irenaeus?  If  it  was  not,  "  it  was  natural  and 
reasonable  to  believe  that  those  who  were  baptized  were 
indeed  regenerate  by  the  Spirit  of  God;"  and  not  regene- 
ate,  merely  by  a  sort  of  legal  fiction. 

Tertullian. 

Tertullian  condemned  the  baptism  of  very  young  persons, 
which  was  gaining  ground  in  his  day.  Dr.  Wardlaw,  of 
Glasgow,  is  quoted  (Appendix  p.  207)  as  affirming,  in  op- 
position to  Mr.  Cox,  that  Tertullian  did  not  condemn  such 
baptisms,  but  only  advised  delay.  The  truth  is,  however, 
that  Tertullian  did  condemn  all  rash  administration  of  bap- 
tism; and  quotes  against  it,  the  scriptures,  Give  not  that 
which  is  holy  to  dogs,  neither  cast  your  pearls  before  swine; 
and,  Lay  hands  suddenly  on  no  man,  neither  be  partaker  of 
other  men's  sins.  Among  the  condemned  rash  baptisms,  he 
reckons  [prcecipue]  especially  the  baptism  of  children.  He 
advises  delay,  therefore,  not  because  the  admission  of  such 
persons  to  baptism  was  merely  inexpedient  or  questionable, 
but  because  it  was  in  his  opinion  wrong.  He  maintained 
that  the  administrator  was  not  at  liberty  to  give  it  to  every 
applicant.  The  opinion  evidently  was  acted  upon,  in  the 
days  of  Tertullian,  that  the  whole  responsibility  of  baptism 
rested  upon  the  applicant;  and  that  the  administrator  had 
no  inquiry  to  make  as  to  the  condition,  disposition,  or  age 
of  the  person;  but  was  at  liberty  to  give  to  every  one  that 
asked.  To  the  prevalence  of  this  doctrine,  connected  with 
the  notion  that  baptism  was  necessary  to  salvation,  the 


Tertullian.  11 

practice  of  infant  baptism  may  be  traced-  The  sponsors 
took  the  whole  responsibility  upon  themselves.  It  was  on- 
ly necessary  that  the  candidate  should  ask,  and  the  admin- 
istrator was  at  liberty  to  give.  Tertullian  opposed  this  doc- 
trine, and  maintained  that  the  administrator  shared  the  res- 
ponsibility, and  was  bound  to  regard  the  condition,  disposi- 
tion, and  age  of  the  candidate;  and  he  warned  him  lest  by 
administering  it  to  improper  persons  he  should  be  partaker 
of  other  men's  sins. 

There  are  two  important  particulars  in  which  the  argu- 
ment fails,  which  Dr.  W.  has  founded  upon  the  quotation 
from  Tertullian. 

Because  Tertullian  opposed  the  baptism  of  children,  it  is 
argued  that  it  was  the  common  practice.  This  argument 
however  is  by  no  means  conclusive.  Particular  instances 
of  error  may  be  opposed  long  before  that  error  becomes 
established  into  a  common  practice:  and  a  common  prac- 
tice may  be  opposed  long  before  it  becomes  the  common  and 
much  less  the  universal  practice.  What  notions  will  be 
entertained  respecting  the  present  age  of  the  world,  a  thou- 
sand years  hence,  if  it  shall  be  believed  that  every  thing  is 
with  us  a  common  practice  which  any  of  our  writers  object 
to  as  rash.  A  psedobaptist  minister  of  this  vicinity,  in  con- 
versation with  a  friend  of  mine,  not  long  since,  objected  to 
the  conduct  of  a  Baptist  minister,  for  receiving  into  his 
church,  persons  of  very  tender  years,  whose  christian  ex- 
perience was  not  sufficiently  tried.  He  thought  this  rash, 
and  that  delay  was  better.  Will  posterity,  if  they  ever 
hear  of  this  objection,  argue,  that  the  admission  of  infants 
into  Baptist  churches  was  the  common  practice  of  our 
time? 

The  argument  fails  in  another  particular.  It  is  urged, 
that  the  parvuli  of  Tertullian  were  infants  who  needed 
sponsors;  who  had  not  developed  their  dispositions;  who 
were  not  grown  up;  were  not  able  to  know  Christ,  and 
could  not  ask  baptism  for  themselves.  As  to  the  need  of 
sponsors,  we  have  the  authority  of  Mosheim  for  saying, 
that  sponsors  were  used  first  for  adults  and  afterwards 
for  infants.  If  this  authority  may  be  relied  on,  the  very 
argument  of  Dr.  W.,  may  be  converted  into  a  demonstra- 
tion, that  infants  who  would  more  naturally  require  spon- 
sors, were  not  used  to  be  baptized,  when  the  practice  of 
having  sponsors  was  introduced.  All  the  other  proofs, 
that  those  little  ones  were  mere  infants,  are  manifestly  de- 
fective-   They  may  have  been  children  even  younger  than 


12  Tertullian* 

those  received  by  the  Baptist  minister  above  mentioned; 
but  that  they  were  mere  infants  cannot  be  proved,  unless 
by  the  last  particular  referred  to,  namely;  "  Let  them  know 
how  to  ask  for  salvation,  that  you  may  seem  to  give  to  him 
that  asketh."  But  when  it  is  considered,  that  Tertullian, 
in  the  beginning'  of  the  paragraph  quoted  by  Dr.  W.,  had 
objected  to  the  doctrine,  that  baptism  ought  to  be  given  to 
every  one  that  asketh,  and  that  it  is  the  rashness  of  com- 
mitting or  entrusting  it,  (non  temere  credendum  esse,)  to 
every  applicant  that  he  condemns;  the  last  sentence  should, 
in  consistence  with  the  tenor  of  the  quotation,  be  interpre- 
ted of  persons,  who,  though  they  ask  for  baptism,  are  sup- 
posed not  to  know  the  value  of  that  for  which  they  ask; 
and  this  accounts  for  the  use  of  the  word  videaris,  that  you 
may  seem  to  give  to  him  that  asketh.  It  appears  to  me 
pretty  clear,  that  the  necessity  of  a  candidate's  asking  for 
baptism  was  admitted  even  by  those  whom  Tertullian  op- 
posed; and  that  the  inarticulate  cries  of  new  born  infants 
were  not,  in  his  time,  construed  to  be  an  asking  for  baptism, 
although  afterwards  in  the  days  of  Cyprian  they  seem  to 
have  been  thus  interpreted.  Dr.  W.,  I  presume,  does  not 
use  sponsors  in  baptism.  If  the  baptism  of  children  which 
Tertullian  opposed,  was  the  prevailing  custom,  then  the 
use  of  sponsors  was  the  prevailing  custom,  and  the  argu- 
ment which  proves  the  propriety  of  the  one,  will  prove  also 
the  propriety  of  the  other. 

In  this  earliest  account  of  the  baptism  of  children,  we 
perceive  that  the  professions  and  engagements  necessary 
to  baptism  were  required  to  be  made  by  sponsors  in  the 
name  of  the  child;  and  that  the  sponsors  were  considered, 
by  Tertullian  at  least,  to  be  in  danger,  if  the  child  proved 
to  be  of  a  perverse  disposition,  and  did  not  keep  the  Grace 
that  had  been  committed  to  him.  It  is  easy  to  account  for 
the  use  of  sponsors  in  the  baptism  of  children,  if,  in  the 
original  baptism,  a  profession  of  faith  and  repentance  was 
required  of  all  who  were  baptized.  But  if  all  the  infants  of 
believers  were  baptized  by  the  Apostles,  merely  upon  the 
engagement  of  their  parents  to  train  them  up  in  the  ways 
of  the  Lord,  the  introduction  of  sponsors  was  altogether 
unnatural.  The  baptism  of  children  which  existed  in  the 
days  of  Tertullian,  is,  therefore,  more  nearly  allied  to  the 
baptism  which  we  practice,  than  to  that  which  is  practised 
by  Dr.  W. 


R.  Robinson,  13 


WRITERS    AFTER  TERTULLIAN. 

The  three  quotations  from  Origen  which  are  urged  in  fa- 
vor of  infant  baptism,  are  taken  from  suspected  translations; 
and  Dr.  Wall  himself,  has  been  able  to  produce  no  others. 
What  both  he  and  Dr.  Gill  have  quoted  from  the  Greek  of 
Origen  is  rather  unfavorable.  One  passage  from  Rufinus' 
translation  speaks  of  it  as  a  received  tradition.  The  pas- 
sage from  Jerome  speaks  less  favorably.  It  appears  there- 
fore, that  nothing  can  be  obtained  from  Origen  himself  to 
favor  this  cause;  and  that,  of  his  translators,  the  most  fa- 
vorable is  the  most  suspected. 

In  Cyprian's  time  we  admit  that  infant  baptism  did  exist 
in  Africa;  and  we  shew  that  infant  communion  existed 
there  also. 

APOSTOLIC    TRADITION* 

There  was  in  very  early  times,  a  controversy  between 
the  Church  at  Rome,  and  the  Churches  of  Asia,  with  re- 
gard to  the  proper  time  of  keeping  Easter.  In  this  con- 
troversy Polycarp,  a  disciple  of  St.  John  took  part.  The 
following  quotation  on  this  subject  is  taken  from  the  pre- 
liminary discourse  prefixed  by  the  Archbishop  of  Canter- 
bury, to  his  translation  of  the  Epistles  of  the  Apostolical 
Fathers:  chap.  6,  sec.  7.  "  Nor  was  his  care  of  the  church 
confined  within  the  bounds  of  the  Lesser  Asia,  but  ex- 
tended even  to  Rome  itself  whither  we  are  told  he  went 
upon  the  occasion  of  the  Quatodeciman  controvery  then  on 
foot  between  the  Eastern  and  Western  Churches,  and 
which  he  hoped  to  have  put  a  stop  to,  by  his  timely  in- 
terposition, with  those  of  Rome.  But  Anicelus  and  he 
could  not  agree  upon  that  point,  each  alleging  Apostolical 
tradition,  to  warrant  them  in  their  practice.*' 

If  within  60  years  of  the  death  of  the  Apostle  John, 
apostolical  tradition  could  not  be  determined,  how  could 
it  be  determined  by  Rufinus  and  Austin?  And  how  can 
a  christian  with  a  good  conscience,  build  his  faith  on  their 
decisions? 

R.    ROBINSON. 

Dr.  W.  makes  great  objection  to  the  writings  and  spirit 
of  Mr.  Robinson;  in  which  he  is  sustained  by  his  colleague, 
Professor  Stuart.  I  shall  not  attempt  a  vindication  of  Mr. 
Robinson's  sentiments  and  temper  in  general,  yet,  I  feel 
myself  called  upon  to  make  a  few  remarks.  1.  In  the  lan- 
guage of  Dr.  W.,  I  may  observe  that,"  The  strange  opin- 
B 


14  Value  of  the  Historical  Argument. 

ions  which  he  held,  have  nothing  to  do  with  the  facts" 
which  he  states.  "  In  regard  to  such  facts,*"  if  his  state- 
ments are  corroborated  by  respectable  writers,  and  especi- 
ally by  those  of  opposite  sentiments  and  practice  to  himself, 
"  his  testimony  is  entitled  to  full  credit."  Our  Author 
finds  it  necessary  to  caution  his  readers  repeatedly  against 
confounding  the  peculiar  opinions  of  his  witnesses  and 
their  testimony  to  facts.  See  pp.  113,  114,122,  124;  of 
the  present  edition.  T  claim  the  same  privilege.  Did  Rob- 
inson hold  stranger  sentiments  than  Origen? — 2.  I  think 
there  is  more  severity  in  the  professor's  remarks,  than  the 
occasion  called  for.  "  Shallow  criticism,  palpable  unfairness? 
profane  levity,  the  most  gross  and  palpable  indecency. ." 
These  are  hard  terms.  I  have  looked  over  the  pages  to 
which  be  refers  us,  and  think  that  the  incidents  and  anec- 
dotes related  by  Mr.  Robinson  might  as  well  have  been 
omitted,  as  they  seem  to  have  but  a  very  remote,  if  any, 
connexion  with  his  main  subject;  but  I  doubt  whether  the 
cause  of  Infant  Baptism  can  be  said  to  have  suffered  in  the 
hands  of  Mr.  R.,  on  the  ground  of  decency,  since  its  history 
furnished  facts  that  even  he  declined  to  record — see  his  his- 
tory, p.  385.  3.  It  is  said,  p.  140,  that  the  Baptists  in 
America  refer  to  Robinson's  History  of  Baptism  as  good 
authority.  What  others  have  done,  I  cannot  tell;  but  on 
turning  to  our  5th  letter,  it  will  be  seen,  that  we  did  not 
rest  our  statements  on  the  authority  of  Mr.  Robinson,  but 
corroborated  them  by  the  testimony  of  eminent  Paedobap- 
tist  writers.  In  justice  however  to  Mr.  Robinson,  it  ought 
to  be  observed,  that  he  seldom  makes  any  important  state- 
ment without  exhibiting  vouchers,  and  thus  giving  the  rea- 
der an  opportunity  of  examining  for  himself. 

VALUE    OF    THE    HISTORICAL    ARGUMENT. 

Dr.  W.,  has  written  several  pages  on  the  value  of  the 
argument  from  Ecclesiastial  History.  In  our  former  an- 
imadversions we  briefly  noticed  some  things  which  he  had 
said  on  that  subject:  but  I  have  two  or  three  observations 
to  make  in  addition.  1.  He  insists  that  it  appears  from  the 
testimony  of  the  Fathers,  that  Infant  Baptism  was  the  "  uni- 
form practice"  of  the  primitive  church.  Now,  in  the  lan- 
guage of  Dr.  W.  I  make  my  appeal  to  men  of  any  denom- 
ination, who  have  the  requisite  qualifications,  and  can  find 
opportunity  to  give  the  subject  an  impartial  and  thorough 
examination,  whether  this  be  fair,  after  the  list  of  names 
which  we  had  given  who  were  not    baptized  in  Infancy? 


Value  of  the  Historical  Argument.  15 

This  ought  to  have  prevented  the  repetition  of  the  phrase 
**  uniform  practice,"  at  all  events,  if  ever  it  could  be  proved 
that  it  was  practiced  to  any  considerable  extent — 2.  He 
urges  the  competency  of  these  witnesses,  from  their  con- 
tiguity to  the  days  of  the  Apostles,  their  interest  in  the  subject 
&c.  Here  israther  a  singular  case.  Several  witnesses  are 
brought  forward  to  prove,  that  Infant  Baptism  was  the  uni- 
form practice  in  their  time,  and  had  been  from  the  days  of 
the  Apostles;  and  yet  some  of  these  persons  themselves, 
though  born  of  Christian  parents,  were  not  baptized  in  in- 
fancy. We  must  suppose  either  that  their  testimony  is 
misconstrued,  or,  that  it  is  inconsistent  with  facts,  i.  e. 
false;  in  either  case,  it  cannot  be  of  any  weight  in  the  present 
controversy.  I  ask  again,  would  our  good  brother  at  An- 
dover  admit  the  testimony  of  these  witnesses  in  the  case  of 
the  use  of  sponsors,  and  of  infant  communion?  But  the  in- 
stance of  the  dispute  about  the  time  of  keeping  Easter 
sufficiently  admonishes  us,  with  what  caution  we  are  to 
receive  the  testimony  of  the  Fathers  concerning  Apostoli- 
cal traditions.  3.  He  urges  the  consequences  of  rejecting 
the  testimony  of  the  Fathers  in  the  case  of  infant  baptism. 
"  What  evidence  have  you,  except  the  testimony  of  unin- 
spired men,  that  the  several  books  which  constitute  the 
Old  Testament  as  we  now  have  it,  are  the  very  books,  to 
which  Christ  and  the  apostles  referred  as  the  word  of 
God?"  This  surely  is  a  strange  question!  What  evidence? 
We  have  the  books  themselves  containing  the  very  passa- 
ges to  which  they  appealed;  cannot  we  determine  for  our- 
selves, whether  the  books  of  the  Old  Testament  contain 
the  passages  quoted  in  the  New?  Again  "  We  have  no  voice 
from  heaven,  and  no  express  testimony  of  any  inspired 
writer  that  the  several  books  which  compose  the  entire 
canon  of  the  New  Testament,  were  given  by  inspiration 
of  God,  or  that  they  were  all  written  by  Apostles,  or  even 
by  christians.  But  we  go  to  Eusebius,  and  to  other  unin- 
spired writers,  and  we  find  that  they  regarded  these  books 
as  the  genuine  productions  ofthose  to  whom  they  are  com- 
jnonly  ascribed,  and  as  having  divine  authority."  Here 
two  very  different  things  seem  to  be  confounded,  or  at  least 
put  upon  a  level;  namely,  the  ascertaining  of  the  writers  of 
the  several  books  of  Scripture,  and  the  evidence  of  the  in- 
spiration of  those  books.  This  kind  of  reasoning  adopted 
by  Br.  W.,  when  I  consider  that  it  was  addressed  to 
young  men  designed  for  the  christian  ministry,  is  some- 
what alarming.     Does  the  proof  of  the  inspiration  of  the 


16  The  Anti-Padobaptist  interpretation 

books  of  holy  Scripture  depend  on  identifying  the  penmen? 
Have  we  no  other,  or  no  better  evidence  of  inspiration,  than 
we  derive  from  Ecclesiastical  history?  I  hope  that  on 
more  mature  reflection,  our  author  would  be  willing  to  mo- 
dify the  statements  made  on  p.  138—139.  "  In  sober  truth,'* 
this  manner  of  writing,  is  calculated  to  injure  his  own  cause. 
But  what  is  of  infinitely  greater  moment,  it  is  suited  to  pro- 
duce doubts  so  far  as  it  may  have  influence,  in  reference  to 
the  divine  authority  of  the  holy  Scriptures.  Indeed,  the 
cause  which  requires  such  arguments  to  support  it,  ought 
to  be  considered  as  desperate  and  should  be  given  up. 

It  ought  however  to  be  carefully  remembered,  that  if  all 
the  writers  of  ecclesiastical  history  had  united,  in  giving  un- 
equivocal testimony  of  the  prevalence  of  a  practice,  for  which 
we  have  confessedly,  neither  precept  nor  example  in  the 
New  Testament,  it  would  have  been  entirely  inadequate 
to  prove  it  to  be  a  divine  institution;  for  our  faith  should 
stand  not  in  the  wisdom  of  men,  but  in  the  power  of  God. 

In  conclusion  I  would  remark,  that  however  irksome  this, 
or  any  other  controversy  may  be  in  itself,  yet  when  we  re- 
collect that  it  is  the  means,  frequently,  of  eliciting  truth, 
and  that  it  may  be  conducted  in  the  spirit  of  the  Gospel,  it 
should  not  be  despised  and  condemned,  seeing  it  may  be 
made  to  answer  very  important  purposes,  connected  with 
the  glory  of  God  and  the  best  interests  of  men.  I  do  not, 
therefore,  regret,  for  my  own  part,  the  attention  which  I 
have  paid  to  these  Lectures,  as  thereby  1  have  had  occa- 
sion to  explore  again  the  field  of  controversy,  and  I  think  I 
have  profited  by  the  labor,  and  shall  be  more  ready  to  give 
to  every  one  that  asketh  me,  a  reason  of  my  faith  and  prac- 
tice. 

May  God  preserve  you  and  me  from  all  error  is  the 
prayer  of  your  brother  in  the  Lord.  DAVID. 

LETTER    X. 

TKE      ANTI-P.EDOBAPTIST      INTERPRETATION    OF    1    COR.    7, 
14.    DEFENDED. 

My  Dear  Brother, — I  have  read  no  part  of  the  lectures 
of  Dr.  Woods,  with  so  much  interest  as  his  remarks  on  the 
interpretation  of  1  Cor.  7,  14.  which  has  been  given  by  the 
Baptist  General  Tract  Society,  and  which  we  had  quoted 
in  our  letters.     It  is  indeed  the  only  part  of  our  letters  to 


of  1  Cor.  7,  14.  defended.  17 

which  he  has  given  a  formal  reply.  I  had  feared  lest  my 
confidence  in  the  correctness  of  this  interpretation  was  too 
great;  and  I  was,  on  this  account,  exceedingly  desirous  to 
know,  what  objections  an  able  piedobaptist  could  bring 
against  it.  I  am  at  length  gratified,  and  am  able  to  state 
to  you,  that  my  confidence  is  rather  increased,  than  lessen- 
ed, both  in  the  correctness  of  the  interpretation,  and  in  the 
conclusiveness  of  the  argument  against  infant  baptism 
founded  upon  it. 

The  chief  objection  brought  against  the  interpretation 
of  Dr.  Gill,  is,  thaTlt  gives  a  sense  to  the  words  holy,  and 
sanctified,  which  is  contrary  to  the  ususloquendi.  Against 
our  interpretation  no  objection  of  this  kind  is  even  hinted, 
In  our  interpretation,  it  is  one  peculiarity  that  the  verse 
throughout,  is  understood  to  be  an  address  to  the  whole 
church.  The  admission  of  this  alone,  wonld  overthrow 
the  paedobaptist  interpretation  at  once;  and  of  course  it  is 
opposed  by  Dr.  W.  That  the  words,  '  else  were  your  chil- 
dren unclean,'  do  not  refer  to  the  whole  church,  he  says  is 
perfectly  clear  and  unquestionable;  but  I  find  no  proof  ad- 
duced, except  what  relates  to  a  general  view  of  the  apos- 
tle's argument.  He  seems  to  admit  that  the  use  of  the  pro- 
noun your,  instead  of  their,  is  a  reason  in  favor  of  our  view: 
though  he  considers  it  by  no  means  conclusive,  "  as  there 
are,"  he  says,  "instances  which  cannot  be  numbered  in 
every  part  of  the  Bible,  of  a  similar  change  in  the  pronoun, 
when  the  game  persons  are  addressed."  Although  I  think 
much  more  attention  is  due  to  these  little  words  than  is  of- 
ten paid  to  them,  yet  I  will  by  no  means  undertake  to  main- 
tain that  irregularities  of  style  in  the  use  of  pronouns,  do 
not  occur.  But  I  am  of  opinion,  that  their  existence  is  not 
to  be  supposed,  unless  it  be  for  some  sufficient  reason.  In 
the  present  case,  if  the  Paedobaptist  interpretation  is  sense, 
and  ours  nonsense,  ours,  notwithstanding  its  grammatical 
accuracy,  ought  to  be  rejected,  and  the  other  though  gram- 
matically inaccurate,  to  be  preferred.  But  if  I  am  not 
greatly  mistaken,  it  is  far  less  with  respect  to  accuracy  of 
expression,  than  to  soundness  of  sense,  that  our  interpre- 
tatioa  of  the  text  is  decidedly  superior. 

The  proposition  which  the  apostle  has  undertaken  to  de- 
monstrate, is,  that  a  believer  may  lawfully  dwell  with  an 
unbeliever  to  whom  he  is  married.  The  argument  which 
he  adduces  in  proof,  is,  that  the  contrary  position  cannot  be 
maintained  without  an  evil  consequence  which  he  thus  ex- 
presses, "  else  were  your  children  unclean."  The  argu- 
b2 


18  The  Anti-Ptedobaptist  interpretation 

merit  is  just,  if  the  evil  is  truly  a  consequence;  and  it  is  the 
more  forcible,  (other  things  being  equal,)  according  as  the 
evil  is  greater. 

In  our  interpretation,  holiness  is  understood  to  signify 
fitness  for  familiar  intercourse;  and  it  is  taken  in  the  same 
sense,  whether  it  is  applied  to  the  children,  or  to  the  unbe- 
lieving husband  or  wife.  The  apostle  is  understood  to  ar- 
gue, that,  as  the  children  are  fit  for  familiar  intercourse,  so 
the  unbelieving  busband  or  wife,  is  fit  for  familiar  inter- 
course. The  Paedobaptist  interpretation,  supposes  the  ho- 
liness to  vary  in  its  application  to  the  two  different  subjects. 
In  one  case  it  implies,  a  fitness  for  familiar  intercourse;  in 
the  other,  a  fitness  for  ecclesiastical  relation;  and  the  apos- 
tle is  understood  to  argue,  that,  since  the  children  are  fit 
for  ecclesiastical  relation,  the  unbelieving  husband  or  wife, 
is  fit  for  familiar  intercourse.  According  to  our  interpre- 
tation, the  apostle  is  understood  to  say,  that,  if  the  unbe- 
lieving husband  or  wife,  were  unfit  for  familiar  intercourse, 
the  children  would,  in  like  manner,  be  unfit  for  familiar  in- 
tercourse. According  to  the  other  interpretation,  he  is  un- 
derstood to  say,  that,  if  the  unbelieving  husband  or  wife 
were  unfit  for  familiar  intercourse,  the  children  would  be 
unfit  for  ecclesiastical  relation.  Now  I  maintain,  that  our 
interpretation  is  preferable  even  if  the  text  had  read,  else 
were  their  children,  &c.  for  the  following  reasons:  1.  The 
holiness  of  which  the  text  speaks  is  taken  in  the  same  sense 
throughout.  The  objection  which  has  been  made  on  this 
ground  against  the  paedobaptist  interpretation  has  never 
been  removed,  notwithstanding  the  labor  that  has  been  ta- 
ken for  this  purpose-  2.  The  argument  is  at  least  equally 
just.  If  an  unbelieving  wife  were  required  to  be  separated 
from  the  familiar  intercourse  of  her  believing  husband,  the 
separation  of  their  children  from  the  familiar  intercourse  of 
their  father,  must  inevitably  follow  on  the  very  same  prin- 
ciple. So  Dr.  W.  has  stated.  "  He  suggested  one  con- 
sideration of  great  weight,  namely:  that  if  according  to  the 
Mosaic  law,  and  the  example  of  the  people  in  the  time  of 
Ezra,  they  were  to  put  away  their  unbelieving  partners,  and 
so  treat  them  as  pagans;  they  must  consider  their  children 
also  as  unclean,  i.  e.  heathen  children,  and  put  them  away 
likewise,  as  the  people  did  in  the  case  referred  to,"  p.  95. 
That  branch  of  the  apostle's  argument,  therefore,  in  which 
he  wards  off  an  evil  consequence,  will  appear  to  as  great 
advantage,  if  that  evil  be  supposed  to  be  a  separation  of  the 
children  from  familiar  intercourse,  as  it  does  on  the  suppo- 


of  1  Cor.  7,  14.  defended.  19 

sition,  that  the  evil  guarded  against  was  a  separation  from 
ecclesiastical  relation.  But  there  is  another  branch  of  the 
argument,  in  which  the  children  are  affirmed  to  be  holy,  on 
the  supposition  that  the  husband  or  wife  is  holy.  That  a 
fitness  for  familiar  intercourse  must  belong  to  children,  if  it 
belongs  to  their  unbelieving  parent,  is  an  inference  so  clear- 
ly just  as  to  be  admitted  at  once  by  every  one:  but  it  is  by 
no  means  so  clear,  that  a  fitness  of  the  children  for  ecclesi- 
astical relation  may  be  justly  argued  from  a  fitness  of  the 
unbelieving  parent  for  familiar  intercourse.  3.  The  argu- 
ment is  stronger,  since  the  evil  guarded  against  is  greater. 
Admission  to  familiar  intercourse  may  exist  without  admis- 
sion to  ecclesiastical  relation;  but  exclusion  from  the  for- 
mer necessarily  implies  exclusion  from  the  latter,  and  is  con- 
sequently a  greater  evil.  The  apostle  had  been  led,  by  the 
nature  of  his  subject,  to  that  view  of  holiness  in  which  it 
implies  a  fitness  for  familiar  intercourse;  and  had  he  kept 
this  before  his  mind,  the  way  was  prepared  for  a  strong  ar- 
gument against  the  principle  which  he  opposed,  by  show- 
ing, as  an  appalling  consequence  of  it,  that  it  would  require 
the  exclusion  of  the  children  from  the  familiar  intercourse 
of  that  parent  who  would  be  concerned  for  their  eternal 
welfare,  and  of  all  other  persons  who  might  guide  their 
feet  into  the  way  of  life.  One  of  these  interpretations  sup- 
poses that  he  did  enforce  this  argument:  the  other  suppo- 
ses that  he  did  not;  but  that,  introducing  another  view  of 
holiness,  he  contented  himself  with  laying  to  the  charge  of 
the  principle  which  he  opposed,  no  other  evil  consequence 
than  that  of  injuring  the  children  in  respect  of  ecclesiastical 
relation. 

In  the  preceding  paragraph  a  comparison  has  been  in- 
stituted between  two  interpretations,  one  of  which  is  that 
commonly  given  by  paedobaptists,  and  the  other  agrees  in 
all  respects  with  ours,  except  that  it  yields  the  point  as  to 
the  extent  of  the  apostle's  address,  and  admits  that,  not  the 
children  of  the  whole  church,  but  those  children  only  are 
intended  who  had  one  unbelieving  parent.  There  are  two 
cases  of  frequent  occurrence,  which  the  apostle's  argument 
will  not  reach,  if  understood  according  to  either  of  these 
methods  of  interpretation.  The  first  case  is,  when  a  be- 
liever and  an  unbeliever  joined  in  marriage,  are  without 
children.  Here  there  is  no  evil  consequence  to  guard 
against;  and,  for  aught  that  the  argument  says  to  the  con- 
trary, the  principle  may  be  maintained  that  such  persons 
ought  to  separate.    The  second  case  is,  when  the  children 


20  The  Anti-Padobaptist  interpretation 

of  such  a  marriage  have  become  grown,  or,  when  the  con- 
version of  one  parent  takes  place  after  the  children  are 
grown.  Here,  though  the  separation  of  the  children  from 
familiar  intercourse  is  an  evil,  yet  it  is  not  a  greater  evil 
than  the  separation  of  the  unbelieving  parent,  and  there- 
fore the  argument,  according  to  one  interpretation,  is  weak: 
but,  according  to  the  other  interpretation,  it  is  positively 
false.  If  one  parent  was  a  believer  when  the  children  were 
young,  then  they  had  a  right  to  the  covenant,  which  the 
future  separation  of  their  parents  would  not  affect.  Of 
course  the  propriety  of  such  future  separation  might  be 
maintained  in  spite  of  the  apostle's  argument.  If  the  con- 
version of  one  parent  takes  place  after  the  children  are 
grown,  no  argument  whatever  can  be  raised  against  their 
separation,  founded  upon  any  injury  which  the  children 
would  sustain  in  respect  to  ecclesiastical  relation;  for  the 
effect  upon  the  children  in  this  respect  is  the  same  whether 
the  parents  continue  together  or  separate.  Indeed,  the 
psedobaptist  interpretation  not  only  represents  the  apostle's 
argument  as  false,  in  its  application  to  this  particular  case, 
but  even  his  very  language  is  not  true  as  a  statement  of 
fact:  for  the  unbelieving  husband  is  sanctified  by  the  wife, 
and  the  unbelieving  wife  is  sanctified  by  the  husband;  and 
yet  the  children  being  adults,  are  not  holy,  but  are  exclud- 
ed from  ecclesiastical  relation  because  of  their  own  unbe- 
lief. 

The  interpretation  which  we  gave  in  our  letters,  from 
the  Baptist  General  Tract  Society,  embraces  every  case  of 
marriage  between  a  believer  and  an  unbeliever,  whether 
they  have  infant  children,  adult  children,  or  no  children. — 
It  places  the  apostle's  argument  upon  the  broad  principle, 
that  a  separation  is  not  more  requisite  between  husband 
and  wife,  than  between  parent  and  child.  It  has  the  fur- 
ther advantage  of  rendering  the  argument  much  stronger 
than  the  other  interpretations  do.  The  evil  consequence 
which  it  shows  to  be  involved  in  the  principle  that  is  oppos- 
ed consists  in  a  separation  not  merely  from  ecclesiastical 
relation  but  from  familiar  intercourse;  and  extends  not  to  a 
few,  but  to  all  the  children  of  the  church;  and  makes  Chris- 
tianity to  oppose  parental  feeling,  to  destroy  parental  obli- 
gation, and  to  ruin  the  offspring  of  all  pious  parents.  It  is 
therefore  not  true  that  "  there  is  not  any  reason  for  consid- 
ering it  as  addressed  to  the  church  at  large,  except  that 
you  and  your,  the  pronoun  of  the  second  person,  is  used  in- 
stead of  the  third  person,  they"    This  method  of  interpre- 


of  1  Cor.  7,  14.  defended.  21 

tation  not  only  makes  the  use  of  the  pronoun  correct,  but 
it  keeps  up  the  same  idea  of  holiness  throughout  the  text, 
it  makes  the  language  of  the  apostle  true,  and  his  argument 
forcible.  Neither  of  these  is  done  by  the  interpretation 
which  Dr.  W.  advocates. 

The  refutation  which  Dr.  W.  has  attempted  of  our  in- 
terpretation, depends  upon  three  principles,  which  need  on- 
ly to  be  stated  distinctly,  in  order  that  one  of  them  shall  ap- 
pear false,'and  the  other  two  a  begging  of  the  question. 

The  first  principle  is,  that  no  case  must  be  introduced  in  a 
demonstration  which  is  not  brought  to  view  in  the  proposi- 
tion. The  following  words  have  no  force  unless  this  prin- 
ciple be  established:  "  It  is  perfectly  clear  from  the  pas- 
sage, that  the  apostle  refers  to  only  one  particular  case^ 
namely,  that  of  a  believing  husband  connected  with  an  un- 
believing wife,  and  a  believing  wife  with  an  unbelieving 
husband.  This  was  the  subject  before  the  mind  of  the 
apostle.  And  the  judgment  which  he  expresses,  his  rea- 
soning, his  conclusion, — all  that  he  says,  relates  to  this 
case."  I  grant  that  the  case  which  is  here  mentioned,  is 
the  only  one  proposition  that  was  before  the  apostle's  mind, 
and  that  the  whole  demonstration  must  therefore  relate 
to  this  case.  But  it  is  perfectly  clear,  nevertheless,  that 
another  case  is  introduced  in  the  demonstration:  for,  what- 
ever children  may  have  been  intended,  they  constitute  a 
case  which  is  not  contained  in  the  proposition,  and  whish. 
is  introduced  merely  for  the  sake  of  the  argument  that  the 
apostle  derives  from  it  in  support  of  the  proposition.  Twen- 
ty distinct  cases  might  have  been  introduced  in  the  same 
manner;  and  it  might  nevertheless  have  been  true  that  every 
thing  which  the  apostle  said,  related  to  the  one  case  that 
was  before  his  mind  in  the  proposition.  All  this  objection, 
therefore,  about  the  unity  of  the  case  comes  to  nothing. — . 
The  apostle  does  introduce  the  case  of  certain  children: 
and  whether  they  were  the  children  of  the  whole  church, 
or  only  of  a  part,  must  be  learned  from  his  words,  and  not  from 
this  false  principle  of  reasoning  to  which  Dr.  W.  himself 
would  not  agree  to  submit;  since,  while  infant  baptism  is 
the  case  before  his  mind  in  the  Lectures  which  he  has  pub- 
lished, he  has  thought  it  justifiable  to  introduce  the  case  of 
the  Christian  Sabbath,  and  of  female  communion,  in  the  ar- 
guments which  he  has  advanced.  With  regard  to  the  ex- 
tent of  the  apostle's  address,  Dr.  W.  makes  the  following  re- 
marks: "  Speaking  of  a  believing  wife  who  is  connected 
with  an  unbelieving  husband,  he  says,  such  a  husband  is 


22  The  Anti-Pmdobaptist  interpretation 

sanctified  by  his  wife  so  that  she  is  under  no  necessity  to 
leave  him; — and  the  same  as  to  a  believing  husband  and  an 
unbelieving'  wife;  and  then  he  adds,  addressing-  himself,  un- 
questionably to  the  same  persons,  otherwise  ....  your 
children  would  be  unclean."  This  confident  assertion,  "ad- 
dressing himself  unquestionably  to  the  same  persons,"  stands 
instead  of  all  further  argument.  And  what  does  this  asser- 
tion mean?  Whom  had  the  apostle  been  addressing?  Was 
it  the  unbelieving  husband  whom  he  had  declared  to  be 
sanctified  by  his  wife;  or  the  unbelieving  wife  whom  he  had 
declared  to  be  sanctified  by  her  husband?  These  persons 
were  not  members  of  the  church,  and  therefore  they  could 
not  be  addressed  in  an  epistle  directed  to  the  church. — 
Can  an  instance  be  found  in  any  part  of  the  apostle's  wri- 
tings, in  which  he  turns  suddenly  from  the  persons  to  whom 
he  wrote  in  order  to  address  unbelievers,  without  giving 
any  notice  whatever  of  this  sudden  apostrophe?  The  ad- 
dress in  the  first  verse  of  the  chapter  is  manifestly  to  the 
church;  and  is  continued  to  the  church  down  to  the  verse 
in  question.  Even  the  phrase,  "  I  say  to  the  unmarried  and 
widows,"  does  not  divert  the  apostle  from  his  address  to  the 
church;  since  he  immediately  applies  to  these  persons,  not 
the  pronoun  you,  but  them.  In  the  verse  immediately  fol- 
lowing the  one  under  consideration  the  church  is  again  ad- 
dressed. And  in  the  next  verse  though  individuals  are  ad- 
dressed they  are  members  of  the  church  and  not  unbeliev- 
ers; and  due  notice  is  given  of  this  change  in  the  address 
by  introducing  the  vocatives,  O  husband,  O  wife.  After 
this  the  apostle  immediately  resumes  the  address  to  the 
church;  and  intimates  that  what  he  had  said  was  intended 
to  be  an  ordinance  for  the  church.  I  ask  then  who  was  it 
the  apostle  had  been  addressing?  It  was  unquestionably 
the  church.  I  therefore  recall  all  objection  to  the  confi- 
dent assertion  of  Dr.  W.  and  freely  acknowledge  its  perfect 
accuracy.  The  apostle  was  addressing  himself  unquestion- 
ably to  the  same  persons,  the  very  same  that  he  had  been 
addressing  in  all  the  preceding  part  of  the  chapter,  name- 
ly, the  CHURCH. 

The  second  principle  upon  which  the  refutation  depends, 
is,  that  the  children  of  two  believers  must  necessarily  be  holy, 
and  the  children  of  two  unbelievers  necessarily  unclean.  We 
believe  that,  with  respect  to  holiness,  all  infant  children  are 
alike,  whether  their  parents  are  believers  or  unbelievers. — 
If  by  holiness  be  meant  a  fitness  for  familiar  intercourse, 
even  the  children  of  two  unbelievers  are  holy,  and  stand  on 


of  1  Cor.  7,  14.  defended,  23 

the  same  ground  with  the  unbelieving1  spouse  of  a  believer. 
Both  may  be  admitted  to  familiar  intercourse  when  the  du- 
ties of  life  require  it.  If  a  fitness  for  ecclesiastical  relation 
be  meant,  the  infant  children  of  two  believers  are,  in  our 
judgment, unholy;  standing,  as  before,  on  the  same  ground 
with  the  unbelieving  husband  or  wife.  The  contrary  of 
this,  however,  is  taken  for  granted  by  Dr.  W.  The  argu- 
ment on  which  his  refutation  may  be  said  wholly  to  de- 
pend, proceeds  thus:  "  What  sense  can  the  passage  have, 
if  we  understand  it  as  addressed  to  Christian  husbands  and 
wives  generally,  both  parties  being  believers?  Else  were 
your  children  unclean!  How?  Why?  The  apostle  says, 
it  would  be  so,  were  it  not  that  the  unbelieving  partner  is 
sanctified  by  the  believing.  But  here  according  to  the  sup- 
position, there  is  no  unbelieving  partner.  And  then  what 
sort  of  relation  has  the  conclusion  to  the  premises?  The 
reasoning  supposed  consists  of  two  parts.  First;  if  the  un- 
believing partner  were  not  sanctified  by  the  believing  part- 
ner, the  children  of  all  other  christians  would  be  unclean. — 
Second;  but  now  as  the  unbelieving  partner  is  sanctified  by 
the  believing  partner,  the  children  of  all  other  christians  are 
holy.  The  first  could  not  be  true.  If  the  unbelieving  part- 
ner were  not  sanctified  by  the  believing,  it  would  indeed 
follow  that  their  children  would  be  unclean,  but  it  would 
not  follow  that  other  children  would  be  unclean,  where  both 
parents  were  believers.  The  conclusion  in  the  second  part 
is  true;  but  it  does  not  follow  at  all  from  the  premises. — 
The  children  of  the  church  generally,  where  both  parents 
are  believers,  are  indeed  holy,  in  the  sense  of  the  apostle; 
but  not  because  a  believing  partner  sanctifies  an  unbeliev- 
ing."— The  first  part  of  the  apostle's  argument  is  hypothe- 
tical. The  hypothesis  is,  If  the  principle  be  true  which  he  op- 
poses. He  does  state,  according  to  our  interpretation,  that, 
on  this  hypothesis,  the  children  of  two  believing  parents 
would  be  unclean.  "  This,"  says  Dr.  W.  "  could  not  be 
true.  Why?  Is  it  because  the  hypothesis  will  not  warrant 
the  conclusion?  No.  It  is,  he  says,  because  there  is  no  un- 
believing parent.  So  then,  be  the  hypothesis  what  it  may, 
the  children  of  two  believing  parents  must  be  holy:  and  this 
assumed  principle  is  so  self-evident  that  it  needs  no  proof, 
and  so  certain  that  it  may  be  used  for  a  test  of  the  accuracy 
of  apostolical  reasoning.  This  assumed  principle  truly  re- 
futes our  interpretation  most  effectually.  It  will  also  effec- 
tually sustain  the  cause  of  infant  baptism.  If  it  holds  good 
on  every  possible  hypothesis;  let  the  hypothesis  be  that  ho- 


24  The  Anti-Padobaptist  interpretation 

liness  when  predicated  of  children  always  implies  a  right  to 
baptism.  The  argument  is  now  very  short.  The  children 
of  two  believing  parents,  are,  upon  every  hypothesis,  holy. 
One  hypothesis  is,  that  holiness,  when  predicated  of  children 
always  implies  a  right  to  baptism.  It  follows,  therefore, 
that  the  children  of  two  believing  parents  always  have  a 
right  to  baptism.  So  easy  is  it  to  prove  infant  baptism,  or, 
I  may  add,  any  thing  we  please.  We  have  only  to  vary  the 
hypothesis,  and  this  accommodating  principle  will  allow  us 
to  prove  that  the  children  of  two  believing  parents  are  any 
thing  and  every  thing  that  we  would  have  them  to  be. 

The  third  principle  is,  that  the  case  of  the  children  is  a 
dependant,  and  not  a  parallel  case.  It  is  taken  for  granted 
that  their  holiness  depends  upon,  and  is  derived  from  the 
holiness  of  the  persons  who  are  mentioned  in  the  preceding 
part  of  the  verse.  This  assumption  having  been  made,  it 
follows  necessarily,  that  none  but  the  children  of  these 
persons  could  be  intended.  Our  interpretation  proceeds 
upon  a  different  principle.  It  supposes  that  the  children 
constitute  a  parallel  case;  and  that  their  holiness  stands 
upon  the  same  ground  with  that  of  the  unbelieving  hus- 
band or  wife,  both  being  derived  from  the  application  of 
the  same  general  rule.  For  the  principle  which  we  as- 
sume, a  reason  was  given.  "  In  the  original  text  the  sub- 
stantive verb,  is  in  the  present  tense;  *  your  children  are  un- 
clean,'— a  mode  of  speaking  more  suited  for  the  stating  of 
a  parallel,  than  a  dependant  case."  But  should  we  admit 
that  this  is  a  reason  of  no  weight,  what  follows?  Both 
principles  must  have  their  merit  tried  by  the  comparative 
excellence  of  the  interpretations,  founded  on  them;  and  that 
neither  interpretation,  should  be  required  to  agree  with 
the  principle  upon  which  the  other  is  founded.  Yet  ours 
is  tried  and  condemned,  because  it  does  not  agree  with  the 
principle  which  has  been  assumed  for  the  other.  Dr.  W. 
says,  as  quoted  above;  "  The  conclusion  in  the  second  part 
is  true;  but  it  does  not  follow  at  all  from  the  premises."  In 
other  words,  the  sanctification  of  an  unbelieving  wife,  can- 
not be  the  premises  from  which  the  holiness  of  any  children 
shall  be  concluded  except  her  own.  This  objection  is  va- 
lid, if  the  case  of  the  children  is  dependant;  but  if  it  is  a 
parallel  case,  the  objection  is  without  force.  If  the  wife 
of  one  believer,  and  the  child  of  another,  stand  on  the  same 
level,  each  of  them  sustaining  a  natural  relation,  and  neither 
of  them  an  ecclesiastical;  where  is  the  absurdity  of  arguing 
from  one  case  to  the  other? 


of  \  Cor.  7,  14.  defended,  25 

The  concluding  paragraph  of  Dr.  W.,  ia  taken  up  in 
stating  the  principles  which  he  deems  essential  to  a  just  in- 
terpretation of  the  passage.  They  involve  the  principles 
which  I  have  already  shown  to  be  either  not  true,  or  a 
begging  of  the  question.     He  states  them  thus. 

"  If  we  would  give  a  just  interpretation  to  this  passage, 
we  must  remember  the  following  things." 

"  1.  That  it  related  to  a  particular  case,  and  to  that  only. 
2.  That  the  uncleanness  spoken  of  in  the  children,  was  an 
uncleanness  which  would  be  the  consequence  of  their  ha- 
ving an  unbelieving  parent,  supposing  that  the  faith  of  the 
other  parent  had  no  influence  to  prevent  it.  3.  That  the 
holiness  the  apostle  attributed  to  children,  was  a  holiness 
they  had  in  consequence  of  being  the  children  of  a  believ- 
ing parent.  Had  both  parents  been  heathen,  the  children 
would  certainly  have  been  unclean  in  the  sense  intended. 
And  even  one  of  the  parents  being  a  heathen,  or  an  unbe- 
liever, would  have  rendered  the  children  unclean,  had  it  not 
been  for  the  influence  of  the  other  parent's  faith.  They 
were  to  be  regarded  as  holy,  purely  because  one  of  their  pa- 
rents was  a  believer,  and  because  the  faith  of  that  parent 
prevented  the  uncleanness  which  would  otherwise  have 
belonged  to  them,  in  consequence  of  their  having  an  unbe- 
lieving parent.  It  was  the  faith  of  the  believing  parent, 
which  put  the  children  upon  a  level  with  the  other  children 
of  the  church.  Those  were  holy  in  consequence  of  the 
faith  of  both  their  parents.  These  were  holy  in  consequence 
of  the  faith  of  one  of  their  parents." 

"  Now  I  think  no  interpretation  of  the  passage  which 
does  not  accord  with  these  principles,  can  be  admitted  as 
correct." 

In  all  this  it  is  manifestly  taken  for  granted,  that  the  apos- 
tle argued  about  the  holiness  or  unholiness  of  the  children, 
not  as  dependant  upon  the  establishment  or  rejection  of 
some  general  principle,  that  might  equally  affect  other 
cases,  but  as  necessarily  dependant  upon  the  holiness  or 
unholiness  of  their  parents,  whatever  general  principle 
might  be  imagined  to  exist.  The  position  that  the  children 
of  two  unbelieving  parents  must  necessarily  be  unclean  in 
the  sense  of  the  apostle,  1  utterly  reject.  They  would  be 
unclean  on  the  principle  which  he  opposed;  but  on  that 
which  he  established,  they  are  holy;  that  is,  capable  of  be- 
ing admitted  to  familiar  intercourse.  Unto  the  pure,  all 
things  are  pure.  There  is  not  a  word  in  the  apostle's  ar- 
gument which  intimates  that  the  holiness  of  the  children 


2Q  The  Anti-Padobaptist  interpretation 

depended  upon  their  parentage.  It  depended  solely  upon 
the  establishment  or  rejection  of  the  general  principle 
which  he  was  applying  to  a  parallel  case.  To  assume  the 
contrary  of  this  in  undertaking  the  refutation  of  our  inter- 
pretation, is,  to  take  for  granted  the  very  thing  in  question, 
and  to  condemn  our  interpretation,  because  it  does  not 
agree  with  this  assumption,  is  to  condemn  it  merely  be- 
cause it  differs  from  a  preconceived  opinion. 

To  compare  the  justness  and  force  which  the  argument 
possesses,  according  to  the  two  interpretations,  it  will  be 
convenient  to  put  down  distinctly  and  in  order,  the  propo- 
sitions of  which  the  reasoning  consists.  The  holiness  of 
the  children  is  not  the  conclusion  of  the  apostle.  It  is  the 
conclusion  which  our  pcedobaptist  brethren  seem  to  have 
before  their  minds  when  investigating  this  text;  but  the 
conclusion  upon  which  the  apostle's  mind  was  fixed,  was, 
that  a  believer  might  lawfully  dwell  with  an  unbelieving 
spouse;  and  the  holiness  of  the  children  constitutes  a  part 
of  the  premises  from  which  the  conclusion  is  drawn.  The 
apostle  did  not  write  in  syllogisms,  placing  his  conclusion 
last;  but  he  stated  his  conclusion  first,  and  then  pointed  to 
the  sources  of  proof.  To  bring  out  his  conclusions  last, 
we  should  reverse  the  order  of  his  proposition,  thus: 

1.  Your  children  are  holy:   therefore, 

2.  The  unbelieving  spouse  is  sanctified:  and  therefore, 

3.  The  believer  may  lawfully  dwell  with  his  unbelieving 
spouse. 

There  is  no  difficulty  in  perceiving,  how  the  third  of  these 
propositions  follows  from  the  second;  and  the  only  question 
is,  how  the  second  follows  from  the  first.  Our  interpreta- 
tion supposes  that  the  two  cases  are  parallel,  and  that  the 
apostle  argues  the  truth  of  the  second  from  the  truth  of  the 
first,  on  the  ground  of  their  being  parallel.  The  pasdobap- 
tist  interpretation,  makes  the  first  proposition  express  an 
effect,  of  which  the  second  expresses  the  cause;  and  the 
truth  of  the  second  is  supposed  to  be  inferred  from  the 
truth  of  the  first,  on  the  ground  that  a  cause  must  exist  for 
the  effect.  According  to  our  view,  the  first  proposition 
from  which  the  others  are  derived,  expresses  the  fact,  that 
a  believing  parent  may  lawfully  dwell  with  his  children — 
a  truth  sufficiently  obvious  to  be  the  foundation  of  the  apos- 
tle's argument.  According  to  the  paedobaptist  interpreta- 
tion, the  first  proposition  expresses  the  supposed  fact,  that 
the  children  of  one  believing  parent,  are  fit  subjects  of  bap- 
tism.   But  this  fact  could  not  be  better  known  to  the  Co. 


of  1  Cor,  7,  14.  defended,  27 

rinthians,  than  the  lawfulness  of  the  believing  parent's 
dwelling  with  the  unbelieving.  The  apostle  therefore  ac- 
cording to  this  view,  proves  what  is  doubtful  by  what  is 
equally  doubtful.  Again,  according  to  our  interpretation, 
the  second  proposition  is  a  legitimate  inference  from  the 
first;  because  of  the  parallelism  of  the  two  cases.  But  ac- 
cording to  the  other  view,  it  is  difficult  to  conceive  how 
the  second  proposition  can  be  a  legitimate  inference  from 
the  first;  or  how  the  sanctification  of  a  mother,  which  does 
not  qualify  her  for  baptism,  can  be  the  cause  of  a  holiness 
in  her  child,  which  shall  include  a  fitness  for  baptism.  Thus 
the  propriety  of  the  reasoning  according  to  the  two  differ- 
ent interpretations  may  be  compared;  and  certainly  that 
interpretation  which  makes  the  apostle  argue  with  proprie- 
ty and  conclusiveness,  and  express  his  argument  in  lan^ 
guage  consistent  and  just,  ought  to  be  preferred. 

The  interpretation  which  I  have  been  defending,  may 
with  propriety  be  called  anti-poedobaptist,  since  it  directly 
opposes  infant  baptism.  If  the  interpretation  can  be  sus- 
tained, the  controversy  may  be  regarded  as  decided. 

Yours  very  affectionately,  JOHN 


m 
m 


I 

H 


